It seems to be the only sane way to do it: when a two-head merge is
done, and the merge-base and one of the two branches agree, the
merge assumes that the other branch has something new.
If we start creating virtual commits from newer merge-bases, and go
back to older merge-bases, and then merge with newer commits again,
chances are that a patch is lost, _because_ the merge-base and the
head agree on it. Unlikely, yes, but it happened to me.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@xxxxxx>
---
merge-recursive.c | 16 +++++++++++++-
1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/merge-recursive.c b/merge-recursive.c
index f5b547b..2d3ab4f 100644
--- a/merge-recursive.c
+++ b/merge-recursive.c
@@ -1191,6 +1191,17 @@ static int merge_trees(struct tree *head
return clean;
}
+static struct commit_list *reverse_commit_list(struct commit_list *list)
+{
+ struct commit_list *next = NULL, *current, *backup;
+ for (current = list; current; current = backup) {
+ backup = current->next;
+ current->next = next;
+ next = current;
+ }
+ return next;
+}
+
/*
* Merge the commits h1 and h2, return the resulting virtual
* commit object and a flag indicating the cleaness of the merge.
@@ -1216,7 +1227,8 @@ int merge(struct commit *h1,
if (ancestor)
commit_list_insert(ancestor, &ca);
else
- ca = get_merge_bases(h1, h2, 1);
+ ca = reverse_commit_list(get_merge_bases(h1, h2, 1));
+ //ca = get_merge_bases(h1, h2, 1);
output("found %u common ancestor(s):", commit_list_count(ca));
for (iter = ca; iter; iter = iter->next)
--
1.4.2.rc3.g29d0-dirty
-
: 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