Re: LCA2006 Git/Cogito tutorial

On Sun, 23 Oct 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> 
> The current callers only feed commits for "$heads" parameters,
> so the merge strategy backends are free to figure out the common
> ancestor or even generate weave on the fly, but an unwritten
> rule was that strategy backends are expected to do something
> sensible even when the "common ancestors" and "heads" fed to
> them are tree objects, which was my comment about 3-way was
> about.

Ahh. Yes, if you use raw trees, you're screwed - you can only ever do a 
3-way merge, since you can't try to figure out any history.

I agree that the "tree only" case is interesting too - it's how you can 
merge trees that may be related content-wise but don't share a history (eg 
the same project maintained in separate source trees), and it's obviously 
how you can merge totally unrelated projects (eg the gitk merge). At the 
same time, I think that's a different kind of merge, in general. And we 
definitely shouldn't limit ourselves to things where such merges work.

Yes, tree-merges are wonderful, and they work really quite well, but I 
definitely want to keep the window open for merges that end up taking the 
full history into account.

I just don't think they are nearly as important as some people seem to 
think. They should be a very special and unusual case, rather than 
something you expect to happen.

		Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html