On 05/05/2012 06:25 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > greened@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes: > >>> I basically did a: git subtree merge --prefix=contrib/subtree <my >>> git-subtree branch> >>> >>> The work in progress in on: https://github.com/helmo/git (the >>> subtree-updates branch) >> This branch seems to have a bunch of commits from master or some other >> branch: > Isn't the confusing shape of the history a direct result of what Herman > said he did above, i.e. use of "subtree merge"? I thought that we agreed > not to do any more subtree merges for further updates when we slurped the > subtree history to contrib/ early in this cycle, so if that is the case, > Herman needs to rebase his work so that the integration will not need any > "subtree merge" into git.git, perhaps? > > I looked at various branches found with ls-remote in that repository but I > couldn't quite tell which is what, with too many cross merges, among which > there are unnecessary duplicated commits (e.g. 90275824 and b9a745f7 seems > to be two equivalent commits) and questionable changes from the overall > project's point of view. > > For example, it renames git-subtree.txt to README.md at a4416ee; while I > find the idea of departing from asciidoc somewhat attractive (perhaps this > is only because I haven't been burned by markdown yet), if "git subtree" > wants to live in the git.git repository, that change is a regression. > Later the file is renamed back to git-subtree.txt (README.md is lost) at > 9ffdeb, a commit with a single-liner "fixing typo" log message adds the > README.md file with full contents of git-subtree.txt again at d9ccd03b, > and then later merge of the branch at 8861de28 finally decides to revert > that to have a shorter README.md that the history originally had, or > something. In short, it is a mess. > > Not very impressed, but I have this suspition that the history I was > looking at was not what was meant to be sent to me and an older > incarnation of the project before Herman cleaned it up for public > consumption, or something. > > Confused... I agree that it's a messy history. It the result of the many painful merges I did. In various stages a conflicting indentation and other changes made it painful to get a clean merge. In an attempt to get through this in a pragmatic way the history has taken some damage. Before starting this latest subtree merge I actually tried to rebase. However this failed very quickly, on the I think third commit out of 60, landing me in conflict resolution as I had already been through. I'd love to improve git but this was just taking too mush effort. When I saw the quick result from subtree merge that seemed like a good thing. Wouldn't a good rebase have almost just as messy a history as the subtree merge? As an alternative I've now applied a patch with all changes on a clean master branch. In the commit message I've named all committers from the original history. Would that be acceptable? Its now available as https://github.com/helmo/git/tree/subtree-updates The subtree merge version is still available as https://github.com/helmo/git/tree/subtree-updates-merged -- Met vriendelijke groet / Regards, Herman van Rink Initfour websolutions -- 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