[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: VC mode and git
From: |
Sergey Organov |
Subject: |
Re: VC mode and git |
Date: |
Mon, 06 Apr 2015 18:28:05 +0300 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.4 (gnu/linux) |
Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
>> From: Sergey Organov <address@hidden>
>> Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2015 00:40:58 +0300
>>
>> Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>> > It's for Alan to say if it's more helpful than saying that a merge is
>> > "just a commit".
>>
>> You are putting words into (my?) mouth. Nobody ever said that merge, the
>> operation, is just a commit, AFAIR. If you indeed meant me, that's what
>> I said:
>>
>> After true merge operation is finished, the only result of it is
>> single commit appended to your current branch. Git /is/ that
>> simple. All the possible complexity is in the stage of content
>> preparation for this commit.
>>
>> I fail to see how this could be taken as saying that merge is just a
>> commit. What I wanted to tell /you/, not /Alan/, is that there is no any
>> hidden meta-information or other mysteries involved.
>
> It was a long sub-thread, so I can understand how you could forget
> what started it. Let me remind you:
I didn't forget it. Thanks for reminding anyway.
>
> You:
>
>> >> "Incorporates changes from the named commits (since the time their
>> >> histories diverged from the current branch) into the current branch."
>
> Me:
>
>> > Good luck understanding this when learning what merge does in Git!
>> > Starting from the "branch" thingy, which, as you will read everywhere
>> > is just a pointer to the HEAD commit. So what does it mean to
>> > "incorporate changes in the current branch", if the branch is just a
>> > pointer?
>
> You:
>
>> Yes, a pointer that moves to point to new commit automatically every
>> time you commit on the branch. Incorporating changes means the same
>> thing every time: commit. What's new or unusual about it?
>
> Which I interpreted as you saying that a merge "means" ("is") "just a
> commit", like every other commit.
I tried to answer to the essence of your question to the best of my
knowledge of Git, just to later receive a blame in being only 90%
precise and in confusing people by saying that "merge is just commit",
that I never said.
I see I made a mistake trying to explain "git merge" manual to you,
thinking that I can do it better than the manual itself. I can't.
-- Sergey.
- Re: VC mode and git, (continued)
- Re: VC mode and git, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2015/04/02
- Re: VC mode and git, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/04/03
- Re: VC mode and git, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2015/04/03
- Re: VC mode and git, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/04/03
- Re: VC mode and git, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2015/04/03
- Re: VC mode and git, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/04/03
- Re: VC mode and git, Sergey Organov, 2015/04/03
- Re: VC mode and git, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/04/04
- Re: VC mode and git,
Sergey Organov <=
- Re: VC mode and git, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2015/04/03
- Re: VC mode and git, Steinar Bang, 2015/04/04
- Re: VC mode and git, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/04/04
- Re: VC mode and git, martin rudalics, 2015/04/04
- Re: VC mode and git, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/04/04
- Re: VC mode and git, martin rudalics, 2015/04/04
- Re: VC mode and git, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/04/04
- Re: VC mode and git, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2015/04/04
- Re: VC mode and git, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/04/05
- Re: VC mode and git, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2015/04/05