Re: Why git-merge-resolve in git-am?

From: Shawn Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Date: Dec 28, 2006, 07:48 UTC
Message-ID: <20061228074857.GC17304@spearce.org>
In-Reply-To: <7virfw3gb2.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> wrote:

Show 13 quoted lines

> Shawn Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> writes:
> 
> > Good reasons, but all are strictly historical.  So there's actually
> > no technical reason we can't use merge-recursive here in git-am.
> 
> A very early version of recursive was unusable (it did not pay
> attention to the merge base the caller gave it and tried to
> always compute it by itself), but that was fixed sometime later.
> 
> I do not recall offhand C version still has that fix (I think it
> does but you should double check); as long ias it honors the
> merge base the caller computed, it should be Ok to replace
> resolve with recursive.  Go wild.

I checked. It does use the merge base supplied by the caller, but only if the caller supplies only one merge base. Otherwise it computes its own.

This isn't a problem for git-am as we only supply one merge base. What was a problem was git-am supplies trees, not commits, and the code internally uses commits. I fixed that in patch 9/11 'Allow merging bare trees' in my recent series.

-- 
Shawn.