Jon Loeliger <jdl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Couple questions:
>
> Is it ever NOT the case, that if you are on one
> branch ("master") and name it as a "to be merged"
> branch along with some others, that we can simplify
> the request by noting that it is the same as the
> current "to be merged into" target branch?
Yes we can, but "filter ancestors out from the remotes"
computation does not happen before the merge strategy is chosen.
> Other than creating a log message with "merged
> by octopus", will this merge be content-identical
> to the obvious simplified merge?
I think octopus actually tries to be careful not to run the
read-tree 3-way merge when merging a true ancestor (see ll.77-87
in git-merge-octopus.sh, but see below), so the resulting tree
should be identical to "-s resolve" merge.
But that does not mean the user's wish to record such a commit
as one ancestor should not be honored, and I think there
actually is a benign bug there. Due to the "Already up-to-date
with $SHA1" part, the codepath that says "Fast forwarding to:"
never actually triggers, so in practice we end up dropping any
true ancestor from the parent list of the resulting merge. That
contradicts the comment in ll.77-87 that suggests we try not to
outsmart the user who told us to create such an octopus for
unfathomable reason ;-)
-
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
