On 3/5/06, Junio C Hamano <junkio@xxxxxxx> wrote: > I could have done without the "questionable octopus leg", but I > did so that when Martin pulled my "next" into his cvsserver ... > The moral of the story is not to try to be nice to others > without thinking about its concequences ;-). I should have just > done without the "questionable octopus leg", and asked Martin to > discard and rebase his tip of the development to my "next" after > this merge. No good deed goes unpunished as they say ;-) In any case, this was perhaps based on a misunderstanding/error on my side. To start off, I didn't understand how you were managing next. I assumed next would be a 'rewind often' branch, a volatile thing that I shouldn't build upon. But as I was in the awkward situation of depending on something in next, I had to, and didn't think of the consequences. As the branch I published for you to pull was based on next, which meant you couldn't merge my stuff into master. So it was a thinko on my side. I just though -- damn, I'll have to work based on next, with the downside of having to be alert for rewinds. Didn't think of the implications for you. It's sorted now, but at great pains for you. I guess all I can suggest is to put something in the name of the branch that means both "rewinds often" and "don't base real work on this". I guess that would be anything but master/maint, but the rules around pu are sometimes tricky too (rewinds often, but some people have no option but to build against it, unless you are treating it same as you treat next). Anyway -- sorry to have caused so much trouble. My work "pending" is at the most a patch or two, easy to extract and reapply. If something like this comes up again, just do whatever is easiest and tell me to rewind/rebase/cherrypick at my end. cheers, martin - : send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html