On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 11:55:51AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 01:20:57PM -0400, Derrick Stolee wrote: > > > >> In conclusion, I think "--show-pulls" provides the right context for these > >> extra merges to show in the history view. It also roots these merges in a > >> Git-native name (that also happens to evoke the "pull request" concept that > >> is _not_ native to Git). > >> > >> What do you think? > > > > Yeah, after reading more of the thread, I think the simplest way to > > think about is "keep merges that pulled in something" with the > > implication of "(even if the other side didn't touch anything)". > > Isn't it more like "even if our side didn't touch anything", though? I meant the _other_ other. :) I.e., the other one that is not what just got pulled in. Which is the first parent. ;) So yes, I think we are on the same page, and I just said it badly. Using "our side" is better than trying to double-negate "other". -Peff
