Martin Langhoff <martin.langhoff@xxxxxxxxx>: > On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Eric S. Raymond <esr@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> - regardless of commit ids, do you synthesize an artificial commit? > >> How do you define parenthood for that artificial commit? > > > > Because tagging is never used to deduce changesets, the case does not arise. > > So if a branch has a nonsensical branching point, or a tag is > nonsensical, is it ignored and not imported? I don't know what happens when identically-named tags point at changes that resolve into two different commits. I will figure that out and document it. There's evidence, in the form of some code that is #ifdefed out, that Keith considered trying to make synthetic commits from tag cliques. But abandoned the idea because he couldn't figure out how to assign such cliques to a branch. I'm not sure what counts as a nonsensical branching point. I do know that Keith left this rather cryptic note in a REAME: Disjoint branch resolution. Branches occurring in a subset of the files are not correctly resolved; instead, an entirely disjoint history will be created containing the branch revisions and all parents back to the root. I'm not sure how to fix this; it seems to implicitly assume there will be only a single place to attach as branch parent, which may not be the case. In any case, the right revision will have a superset of the revisions present in the original branch parent; perhaps that will suffice. -- <a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a> -- 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