On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I remember it! > > So there are two points: the "no changes outside narrow tree from > "you"" assumption and whether it is trivial to do a merge outside > narrow tree without whole trees. > > The first point. That assumption holds if user clones, starts working, > then does "pull origin". But if user merges another branch, say "next" > into "master", the common commit may be somewhere down in history and > there may be changes outside narrow tree from both "you" and > "upstream" (though user does not make those changes). Yes, I agree; you can't merge with the data you have in such a case. > The second point (probably not needed if the above assumption is no > longer true, but I post anyway in case I forget it again). Without > whole trees, it's impossible to determine a trivial merge reliably. If > "you" adds a file and "upstream" adds another file, predecessor trees > will look different but merging them is trivial (at file level). If we > miss some trees that lead to those new files, the best thing we can do > is to claim it non-trivial. I'm not following this one. Could you provide more detail? -- 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