On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> I don't think the original "resolve" did it, for example. You can't do >> a three-way merge without a base. > > Yes, and that continues to this day: Yeah, "octopus" also refuses it cleanly: common=$(git merge-base --all $SHA1 $MRC) || die "Unable to find common commit with $pretty_name" The code in the recursive merge that allows this to happen is this: if (merged_common_ancestors == NULL) { /* if there is no common ancestor, use an empty tree */ struct tree *tree; tree = lookup_tree(EMPTY_TREE_SHA1_BIN); merged_common_ancestors = make_virtual_commit(tree, "ancestor"); } so the "no common ancestors" is just considered to be an empty merge base. And I do think that's right, and I think it's clever, and it goes back to 2006: 934d9a24078e merge-recur: if there is no common ancestor, fake empty one but I think there should be an option there. > This is a tangent but I wonder if we should say why we refuse to > the standard error before calling these two "exit"s. As mentioned, Octopus does. That said, there's probably no reason to ever use the old three-way merge, so I'm not even sure it's worth fixing the old git-merge-resolve. Linus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html