On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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). > Well, obviously it's how git works since it's what I got. But the question was more about if the cortectness of the end result: should 'B' removed after the merge. IOW if someone works on its own branch remove B file and thought it was a bad idea and restore it whereas another person remove B file but miss the fact that it was a bad idea, does the merge should silently remove B file ? -- Francis -- 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