[...sorry for making this such a long thread...] On 9/18/07, Sam Vilain <sam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Lars Hjemli wrote: > > On 9/18/07, Sam Vilain <sam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> I think that writing a real fast-forward merge should only happen on > >> dcommit, not git merge, because that is what is required for SVN. > >> > > > > I don't think git-svn has any way of knowing that the user wanted a > > merge, unless a merge commit is present. So the user would have to > > specify the set of commits which should be considered a merge during > > dcommit (this would actually resemble how merges are performed in > > subversion). > > > > Sure it can. If you're committing to branch X, and the current tree has > a whole lot of commits above that, then it should do the only thing you > can do with SVN. > > Which is write a squash commit, and set the "svn:merge" and/or > "svk:merge" properties to represent what happened. I often have prepared a series of local commits which I _want_ to preserve as different subversion revisions. Also, doing a --squash means that I loose the merge history in git (and then I need to edit the grafts file again) > > > Sidenote: this might be slightly controversial, but I've sometimes > > missed a --no-ff option to 'git merge' when working on plain git > > repositories; IMHO preserving the 'logical' merge history when the > > merge of a topic branch results in a fast-forward can be interesting. > > If you really want one, use git commit-tree directly. Yeah, that's an option, but --no-ff is somewhat less work ;-) -- larsh - 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
