>>>>> "BS" == Barry Silverman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

I have not thought about remote issues at all, other than the
distribution mechanism vaguely outlined in my previous mail (not
cc'ed to git list but I would not mind if you reproduced it here
if somebody asked), so I am not qualified to comment on that
part of your message.

BS> The way Junio has done it, no intermediate trees or commits
BS> are used...

BS> Is this a bug or a feature?

I would call that a feature in that there is no need to look at
intermediate state.  I also might call that a misfeature in that
it may have resulted in a better merge if it looked at
intermediate state.

I just have this fuzzy feeling that, when doing this merge:

                     A-1 --- A-2 --- A-3
                    /                   \ 
    Common Ancestor                      Merge Result
                    \                   /
                     B-1 --- B-2 --- B-3

looking at diff(Common Ancestor, A-1), diff(Common Ancestor,
B-1), diff(A-1, A-2), ... might give you richer context than
just merging 3-way using Common Ancestor, A-3, and B-3 to derive
the Merge Result.  It might not.  I honestly do not know.

BTW, Pasky, the above paragraph is my answer to your question in
the other message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> But one different thing to note here.
> You say "merge these two trees" above (I take it that you mean
> "merge these two trees, taking account of this tree as their
> common ancestor", so actually you are dealing with three trees),
> and I am tending to agree with the notion of merging trees not
> commits.  However you might get richer context and more sensible
> resulting merge if you say "merge these two commits".  Since
> commit chaining is part of the fundamental git object model you
> may as well use it.

Pasky> Could you be more particular on the richer context etc?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to