Junio C Hamano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Catalin Marinas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Is FETCH_HEAD going to be preserved by the git-fetch-script operation? >> It should be, unless, git-pull-script removes it or it is changed to >> do the fetch as well. > > I am not quite sure what is being asked (especially "operation"; > I take it you meant "surgery" or "butchering"), so my answer may > be missing the point.
OK, I wasn't that clear. Currently git-fetch-script stores the fetched head in the FETCH_HEAD file and git-pull-script uses this file to do the merging (by passing its content to git-resolve-script). Anyway, I can easily change StGIT to only use git-pull-script directly, without the intermediate fetch. > I would like to update fetch to deal with multiple references, > and if the user tells it to fetch N references, the FETCH_HEAD > file would contain N lines, one line for each SHA1 object name. > Initially I will not allow pull to take more than one reference > because I will need to make resolve capable of resolving more > than two parents (i.e. octopus merge) before that happens. But > once that is done, then pull will accept N references and call > fetch with these N references, then fetch leaves N lines in > FETCH_HEAD, and those N SHA1 object names along with the current > head would be given to resolve to create an (N+1)-head king > ghidorah. I do not know how well this would go, but at least > that is the current plan. It might be hard to deal with conflicts resulted from merging N > 2 heads at the same time. I suspect it would call 'merge' (diff3) for every new head but it might not be that obvious which head merging failed (it depends on how you implement it). A way of continuing the merge for the rest of the fetched heads after a failure needs to be available. -- Catalin - 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
