Stephen R. van den Berg wrote: > Junio C Hamano wrote: > > o---...o---B---A > > / \ (wrong) > > ---o---o---...o---X---A' [...] > >To put it another way, having the parent link from A' to A is a statement > >that A' is a superset of A. Because A contains B, you are claiming A' > >also contains B, which is not the case in your cherry-picked history. > > Which existing git command actually misbehaves because it makes the > above assumption? Most importantly: merge. If you later merge the top branch into the bottom one, the merge-base is now A. So any such merge, that under normal circumstances would have integrated B (which as Junio said could be a very important fix!) would not do so in your version. But other things fail too: take the '..' and '...' way of specifying revisions (because they consider B as "on the bottom branch" with that extra parent relationship). - Thomas -- Thomas Rast trast@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
