On May 19, 2007, at 10:20 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Junio C Hamano <junkio@xxxxxxx> writes:
As long as you stay as a "pull-only" person, and will never ask
the upstream to pull back from you, what first parent log would
show would make perfectly good sense. However, once a pull from
you by the upstream happens, the resulting history would get the
summary in the merge you did, which is totally unwanted --- the
upstream already had those summarized commits long time ago in
its history.
Why would the summary of the upstream-to-topic-merge be so harmful?
It would not change the summary message of a pull from topic back to
the upstream. Af far as I can see, merge commits do not contribute
to a summary message. However, when browsing the full log the summary
might be distracting because a single commit may be listed at
various places, although it was already in the upstream. This is
kind of ugly. ...
The criteria to decide "wanted vs unwanted" all boil down to
essentially the question of who "owns" the history. Although
Linus often says that the point of distributed development is
that nobody is special, at the end of day, once you asked the
"upstream" to pull from you, your history becomes part of HIS
history, and at that point, when HE browses the history (which
he now thinks as HIS history), the summary shows the summary the
wrong way. So in that sense, merge.summary is going against the
philosophy of distributedness.
... I'd say you only "own" the history of a branch along its
first-parent-path to the initial commit. This is what you control
either by directly committing to the branch or by pulling other
branches.
Isn't the history along the first parents especially important because
it documents the functionality of the project? If I want to say
something
about git at a certain point in time, I'd talk about master of the
official
git repository. "git log --first-parent" in some sense completely
describes the history of git. At merges at least a summary of features
pulled from topic branches is given.
But this is true not only for the upstream master but for every branch.
The first-parent-path of any commit documents (at least in summaries)
which features were introduced to the branch at which place. If a
topic pulls from upstream, features already available in the upstream
are introduced to the topic at this time. Why not summarize this?
The summary message is useful in a very short term (i.e. while
it is still near the tip of the branch and running "git log"),
but I think JBF is correct to point out that it is showing a
shortcoming of our history browsing tools. The information
recorded there can easily be reproduced on the fly. Whenever
you see a merge commit, you can choose one parent to base your
view of the history upon (typically the first parent), and
summarize commits that are reachable from other parents but not
from that parent (e.g. for a typical two-parent merge, you would
run "git short-log $commit^1..$commit^2").
I find the summary messages quite useful when browsing merges. The
summary
allows to quickly locate the branch that was merged at that point.
You just
look at the list of summaries and locate the mentioned commits in gitk.
Minimal merge messages like "Merge branch 'maint' of URL into maint" are
much harder to understand. The branches mentioned in the message do
no longer
have any meaning. They either ceased to exist or advanced to
somewhere else.
The URL typically means nothing to me, although it may have meant a
lot to
the one who pulled at the time of the pull. Such minimal messages do
not help browsing history.
It would probably be more useful to name the merged branch by the
summary
of its head at the time of the merge. For example
"Merge branch 'user-manual: reorganize public git repo discussion'"
would give more hints where to continue browsing than
"Merge branch 'maint' of URL into maint".
- Steffen
-
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
