Am 07.03.2013 19:59, schrieb Heiko Voigt:
> On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 10:49:09AM +0100, Daniel Bratell wrote:
>> Den 2013-03-06 19:12:05 skrev Heiko Voigt <>:
>>> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 05:44:05PM +0100, Daniel Bratell wrote:
>>>> A submodule change can be merged, but only if the merge is a
>>>> "fast-forward" which I think is a fair demand, but currently it
>>>> checks if
>>>> it's a fast-forward from a commit that might not be very interesting
>>>> anymore.
>>>> If two branches A and B split at a point when they used submodule commit
>>>> S1 (based on S), and both then switched to S2 (also based on S)
>>>> and B then
>>>> switched to S21, then it's today not possible to merge B into A, despite
>>>> S21 being a descendant of S2 and you get a conflict and this warning:
>>>> warning: Failed to merge submodule S (commits don't follow merge-base)
>>>> (attempt at ASCII gfx:
>>>> Submodule tree:
>>>> S ---- S1
>>>>   \
>>>>    \ - S2 -- S21
>>>> Main tree:
>>>> A' (uses S1) --- A (uses S2)
>>>>   \
>>>>    \ --- B' (uses S2) -- B (uses S21)
>>>> I would like it to end up as:
>>>> A' (uses S1) --- A (uses S2) ------------ A+ (uses S21)
>>>>   \                                     /
>>>>    \ --- B' (uses S2) -- B (uses S21)- /
>>>> And that should be legal since S21 is a descendant of S2.
>>> So to summarize what you are requesting: You want a submodule merge be
>>> two way in the view of the superproject and calculate the merge base
>>> in the submodule from the two commits that are going to be merged?
>>> It currently sounds logical but I have to think about it further and
>>> whether that might break other use cases.
>> Maybe both could be legal even. The current code can't be all wrong,
>> and this case also seems to be straightforward.
> Ok I have thought about it further and I did not come up with a simple
> (and stable) enough strategy that would allow your use case to merge
> cleanly without user interaction.
> The problem is that your are actually doing a rewind from base to both
> tips. The fact that a rewind is there makes git suspicious and we simply
> give up. IMO, thats the right thing to do in such a situation.
> What should a merge strategy do? It infers from two changes what the
> final intention might be. For submodules we can do that when the changes
> on both sides point forward. Since thats the typical progress of
> development. If not there is some reason for it we do not know about. So
> the merge gives up.
> Please see this post about why we need to forbid rewinds from the
> initial design discussion:

I agree that rewinds are a very good reason not merge two branches using
a fast-forward strategy, but I believe Daniel's use case is a (and maybe
the only) valid exception to that rule: both branches contain *exactly*
the same rewind. In that case I don't see any problem to just do a fast
forward to S21, as both agree on the commits to rewind.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to