On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 08:08:51AM +0100, Johannes Sixt wrote: > Peter Baumann schrieb: > > On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 05:07:53PM +0100, Johannes Sixt wrote: > >> Peter Baumann schrieb: > >>> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 07:59:19AM +0100, Johannes Sixt wrote: > >>>> If I were to re-merge topic into master a second time after this > >>>> situation, I would install a temporary graft that removes the second > >>>> parent of M and repeat the merge. After the graft is removed, the history > >>>> would look like this: > >>>> > >>>> B --- C --- D --------------. [topic] > >>>> / \ \ > >>>> A --- ... --- M ... --- U ... N [master] > >>>> > >>>> Are there any downsides? I don't know - I haven't thought it through. > >>>> > >>> Might be. If there is any branch starting anywhere in between M and U > >>> which also needs to merge [topic] will also cause you headaches :-) > >>> > >>> B --- C --- D --------------. [topic] > >>> / \ \ > >>> A --- ... --- M ... --- U ... N [master] > >>> \ > >>> x --- y [side_branch wich needs to merge topic] > >> ?? I don't follow you. The side branch already contains the topic. What do > >> you want to merge? > >> > > > > Won't it loose the revert 'U' after merging side_branch back to master? > > > > Ah. Looking at the picture more closely, I could answer myself and say it would > > only cause a huge mergeconflict, won't it?. > > No. N and the merge-base of N and y are identical (wrt changes introduced > by B,C,D). At least this part will not cause any conflicts. > You are right. How could I missed that. Thanks for the clarification. -- Peter -- 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