[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Missing changes in merges from emacs-25 to master
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: Missing changes in merges from emacs-25 to master |
Date: |
Fri, 25 Mar 2016 20:33:55 +0300 |
> From: David Engster <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden
> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 17:00:45 +0100
>
> > After all this, what would you expect "git annotate" to show on the
> > master branch as the commit that introduced the affected source lines?
> > Shouldn't it show the original commit, i.e. 9835757? Because it
> > doesn't show that, it shows ad879b7 instead. If that's expected
> > behavior, then I _really_ don't understand what "skip" means here,
> > since it sounds like it didn't use the "ours" strategy, according to
> > your definition. What am I missing?
>
> Well, the cherry-picked commit ad879b7 is now in master's history. The
> patch of that diff shows that it changes those lines. That we chose to
> ignore the patch can only be seen by looking at the merge commit
> 300560577, which references the same 'tree' as the previous merge
> 'cb4e054e', meaning they both reference they same set of files:
>
> > git cat-file 300560577 -p
> tree ae2bec4f10425bd61e2a90563edc178d382bb4b8
> [...]
>
> > git cat-file cb4e054e41c -p
> tree ae2bec4f10425bd61e2a90563edc178d382bb4b8
>
> My best guess is that 'git annotate' does not incorporate that
> information, but I'm not familiar with the inner workings of that
> command. Maybe no one bothered to implement it, or maybe it would make
> annotation even slower.
So I guess the fact that a commit was skipped during a merge is
something that is so hard to see that perhaps the entire issue of
skipping is moot with Git, and we shouldn't be bothered by it.
> >> > With Bazaar, there was a clear mainline, displaying which these
> >> > commits wouldn't appear at all. We don't have that with Git, so the
> >> > analogy doesn't really help.
> >>
> >> Bazaar didn't display *any* commits from merged branches by default,
> >> whether they were "skipped" or not.
> >
> > Of course: those commits were on other branches, so they are
> > irrelevant for the mainline.
>
> Those commits were made part of mainline's history
Not in Bazaar's philosophy. They are part of the DAG, but not of the
branch's mainline.
> > What Bazaar would show is the single merge-commit, which (with Bazaar)
> > "represents" the commits on the merged branch.
>
> I forgot how it worked in Bazaar. Did a merge commit hold the full patch
> information of all merged commits?
Yes.
> I can at least assure you that the patches from those commits are
> ignored.
I believe you. It's just strange and confusing that so many Git
commands show information that indicates the opposite, and the truth
is only shown by looking at the low-level objects and comparing
hashes.
- Re: Missing changes in merges from emacs-25 to master, (continued)
- Re: Missing changes in merges from emacs-25 to master, David Engster, 2016/03/25
- Re: Missing changes in merges from emacs-25 to master, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/03/25
- Re: Missing changes in merges from emacs-25 to master, David Engster, 2016/03/25
- Re: Missing changes in merges from emacs-25 to master, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/03/25
- Re: Missing changes in merges from emacs-25 to master, David Engster, 2016/03/25
- Re: Missing changes in merges from emacs-25 to master, David Engster, 2016/03/25
- Re: Missing changes in merges from emacs-25 to master,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: Missing changes in merges from emacs-25 to master, David Engster, 2016/03/25
- Re: Missing changes in merges from emacs-25 to master, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/03/25
- Re: Missing changes in merges from emacs-25 to master, Óscar Fuentes, 2016/03/25
- Re: Missing changes in merges from emacs-25 to master, Paul Eggert, 2016/03/25
- Re: Missing changes in merges from emacs-25 to master, Stefan Monnier, 2016/03/26
- Re: Missing changes in merges from emacs-25 to master, Phillip Lord, 2016/03/22
- Re: Missing changes in merges from emacs-25 to master, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/03/22
- Re: Missing changes in merges from emacs-25 to master, John Wiegley, 2016/03/22
- Re: Missing changes in merges from emacs-25 to master, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/03/22