On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 02:34:43PM +0200, Michael Gaber wrote: > > So merging 'b1' into master removed the B file even if in branch 'b1' > > I restored it. > > > > Could anybody explain me why this is the correct behaviour and why not > > file 'B' is not restored as it was done in branch 'b1' ? > > well, I'd say the thing is, that in b1 there is no change at all to the > tree anymore, so when applied to master (without B) there is no b restored That is exactly it. Git's 3-way merge doesn't look at the intervening history at all. It looks _only_ at the two endpoints and their merge-base (well, that is a bit of a simplification, as there may be multiple merge-bases, but it is what is happening here). -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: 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