Re: Merges without bases

From: Darrin Thompson <darrint@progeny.com>
Date: Aug 25, 2005, 22:59 UTC
Message-ID: <1125010764.4110.35.camel@localhost.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <7vvf1tps9v.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 15:26 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

>         empty=`GIT_INDEX_FILE=.no-such-file git-write-tree`
>         git-read-tree -m -u $empty $head $foreign ||

ooooo. Tricky.

Thanks for the script. That's a bad, bad hack. :-)

Show 6 quoted lines

> One thing that makes me reluctant to recommend this "merging
> unrelated projects" business is that I suspect that it makes
> things _much_ harder for the upstream project that is being
> merged, and should not be done without prior arrangement; Linus
> merged gitk after talking with paulus, so that was OK.
>

What I'm going to do is actually an inversion of that. Publishing a repository with the _intent_ of being merged into existing history, and observing obvious naming conventions as the "prior arrangement".

I thought once I got the initial baseless merges done and committed that I do fetch-octopus from that point on. But octopus was still complaining about not finding a merge base. I'm going to verify that I didn't just mess something up in the process.

If I can get octopus working as the tool for doing merges _after_ the baseless merges then I can live with the current situation.

-- Darrin