Re: Question on empty commit

Luben Tuikov <ltuikov@yahoo.com> writes:

> Now the last merge introduced an empty commit, since
> tree A and tree B had been in sync (only local and
> remote trunk had been out of sync).  While it was expected
> that no commit would be introduced since they were in sync.
>
> Was the empty commit correct behavior?

I do not quite follow you, but immediately before the "empty
commit" (I presume you mean the last "git merge" that merges
treeA head in treeB), you say "the treeA and treeB had been in
sync".  What do you exactly mean?  The tree object in the head
commits in treeA branch and treeB branch were identical?

If that is the case, the commit being empty is the correct
behaviour, because there is no difference in the set of files
introduced by that commit.  And the commit being made is also
the correct behaviour, because those two branches have different
development history, and the commit is what binds them together.

-
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