Matt McClure <> writes:

> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Junio C Hamano <> wrote:
>> I think what I missed is that the same logic to ignore side branches
>> whose history gets cauterised with such an "ours" merge may apply to
>> an "ours" merge that people already make, but the latter may want to
>> take both histories into account.
>> So I guess it is not such a great idea.
> The particular proposed implementation? Or the broader idea to save
> loose commits more permanently? I'm still interested in a solution for
> the latter.

Recording such an "otherwise should not be recorded as a merge" side
history as if it were "-s ours" merge is what I judged as "not a
great idea".

If you want to keep older commits, either you make sure you point at
them with some refs, or not prune the repository.  I do not think of
any other solution offhand.
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