Re: equal-tree-merges as way to make rebases fast-forward-able

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



"Bernhard R. Link" <brlink@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>>        3-------.
>>       /         \
>>      0---2---W---B
>>       \         /
>>        1-------Z
>>
>> That is, Z and W records the interdifff between 1 to 3 and 2 to 3
>> respectively, and B is a same-tree merge of 3, W and Z.
>
> I think changing it to get this would be easy (though only in the case
> where the very last commit was such an equal tree merge), but I do not
> think it would be actually better:
>
> - it is no longer possible to see the history of changes by just walking
>   right on every equal-tree-merge.
> - commit a no longer exists. If some downstream already has
>   cloned/pulled, no fast-forward is possible any more.

Oh, I wasn't suggesting you to change it to use an octopus.  I however did
want to know if you considered pros-and-cons with such an alternative
(there perhaps are other approaches as well), and I agree recording one
iteration at a time like you do is better.
--
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

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]