From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jakub Narebski Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH 0/5] Implement 'prior' commit object links (and Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 17:21:37 +0200 Organization: At home Message-ID: References: <20060429165151.2570.qmail@science.horizon.com> <7viros1585.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Apr 30 17:21:20 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FaDjY-0003Fr-0d for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sun, 30 Apr 2006 17:21:16 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751151AbWD3PVI convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Apr 2006 11:21:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751148AbWD3PVI (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Apr 2006 11:21:08 -0400 Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2]:62120 "EHLO ciao.gmane.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751151AbWD3PVG (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Apr 2006 11:21:06 -0400 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1FaDjI-0003DJ-Od for git@vger.kernel.org; Sun, 30 Apr 2006 17:21:00 +0200 Received: from 193.0.122.19 ([193.0.122.19]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 30 Apr 2006 17:21:00 +0200 Received: from jnareb by 193.0.122.19 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 30 Apr 2006 17:21:00 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: git@vger.kernel.org X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 193.0.122.19 User-Agent: KNode/0.7.7 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Jakub Narebski wrote: > Junio C Hamano wrote: >=20 >> Jakub Narebski writes: >>=20 >>> * "prior" - heads=A0that=A0represent=A0topic=A0branch=A0merges >>=20 >> This is not any different from usual "parent" at all (but you >> have to think about it a bit to realize it). > [cut] > Thanks for an explanation. >=20 > I would say that "prior" is not THAT different from usual "parent", > rather than it is not ANY different. >=20 > My doubts about recording previous head of a "union" (pu-like) branch > is that for merge (e.g. 'pu' to 'next', cherrypick to/from 'pu', 'pu' > rebase) is that for merge algorithm all parents are equivalent, with > eventual exception of first which can be treated special ('ours'). Additionally with "prior" (or at least some convention on which of pare= nts is to prior head of "union (pu-like) branch) I think we could fast-forw= ard such branches... --=20 Jakub Narebski Warsaw, Poland