Matt McClure <matthewlmcclure@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I think what I missed is that the same logic to ignore side branches >> whose history gets cauterised with such an "ours" merge may apply to >> an "ours" merge that people already make, but the latter may want to >> take both histories into account. >> >> So I guess it is not such a great idea. > > The particular proposed implementation? Or the broader idea to save > loose commits more permanently? I'm still interested in a solution for > the latter. Recording such an "otherwise should not be recorded as a merge" side history as if it were "-s ours" merge is what I judged as "not a great idea". If you want to keep older commits, either you make sure you point at them with some refs, or not prune the repository. I do not think of any other solution offhand. -- 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