Christian Couder <chriscool@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Yeah, but what is quite confusing I think is that a merge base seems to be > defined as "an as good as possible _common_ ancestor" but in this case, the > result of "git merge-base A B C" is not an ancestor of C (even with --all > option). So perhaps we need a better definition. See my other message. "git merge-base A B C" is not the best common ancestors across A B and C. It is the best common ancestors between A and a commit that is a merge between B and C. By defining/explaining it that way, you can avoid the "Huh, are you talking about OR or AND" question you would inevitably get when you say "Common ancestor of A and B or A and C". Also in "git merge-base A B C", A is fundamentally different from any other commit; a commit being (or not being) common between A and B (or A and C) is what we care about a lot, but a commit being (or not being) common between B and C does not matter in this computation. -- 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
