[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFzVqPzEg6zq7sRweE7OCVKMJzM1eZRHXddMG+BabEDeCA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 10:01:25 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@...ox.com>
Cc: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@....de>,
Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
Git Mailing List <git@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] GPIO bulk changes for kernel v4.6
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@...ox.com> 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists