Re: Re: Merge with git-pasky II.

> >>>>> "LT" == Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> writes:
> 
> LT> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> 
> >> Sorry, I have not seen what you have been doing since pasky 0.3,
> >> and I have not even started to understand the mental model of
> >> the world your tool is building.  That said, my gut feeling is
> >> that telling this script about git-pasky's world model might be
> >> a mistake.  I'd rather see you consider the script as mere "part
> >> of the plumbing". 
> 
> LT> I agree. Having separate abstraction layers is good.  I'm actually very 
> LT> happy with Pasky's cleaned-up-tree, exactly because unlike the first one, 

> LT> Pasky did a great job of maintaining the abstraction between "plumbing" 
> LT> and user interfaces.
> 
> Agreed, not just with your agreeing with me, but with the
> statement that Pasky did a good job (although I am ashamed to
> say I have not caught up with the "userland" tools).

> LT> The plumbing should take user interface needs into account, but the more
> LT> conceptually separate it is ("does it makes sense on its own?") the better
> LT> off we'll be. And "merge these two trees" (which works on a _tree_ level)
> LT> or "find the common commit" (which works on a _commit_ level) look like 
> LT> plumbing to me - the kind of things I should have written, if I weren't 
> LT> such a lazy slob.
> 
> I am planning drop the ancestor computation from the script, and
> make it another command line parameter to the script.  Dan
> Barkalow's merge-base program should be used to compute it and
> his result should drive the merge.  That sounds more UNIXy to
> me.

> I even may want to make the script take three trees not
> commits, since the merge script does not need commits (it only
> needs trees).  As plumbing it would be cleaner interface to it
> to do so.  The wrapper SCM scripts can and should make sure it
> is fed trees when the user gives it commits (or symbolic
> representation of it like .git/tags/blah, or `cat .git/HEAD`).

> But one different thing to note here.
> 
> You say "merge these two trees" above (I take it that you mean
> "merge these two trees, taking account of this tree as their
> common ancestor", so actually you are dealing with three trees),
> and I am tending to agree with the notion of merging trees not
> commits.  However you might get richer context and more sensible
> resulting merge if you say "merge these two commits".  Since
> commit chaining is part of the fundamental git object model you
> may as well use it.