Re: [Discussion] cherry-picking a merge

From: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Date: Nov 15, 2007, 08:16 UTC
Message-ID: <20071115081648.GK14735@spearce.org>
In-Reply-To: <7v3av86iqa.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 24 quoted lines

> You can replay the change between A and M (in other words, the
> effect of merging B into A) on top of C to create a new commit,
> with:
> 
>         $ git cherry-pick -m 1 M
> 
> In the current implementation, the resulting commit has a single
> parent C.  This is quite similar to a squash merge of B into C.
> 
> When you think about it, as long as the topological relationship
> between A and B is very similar to that of C and B (iow,
> "merge-base A B" and "merge-base C B" are the same), the effect
> should be the same as a real merge between B and C, shouldn't it?
> 
>   ---o---o---C---A---M
>       \       \     /
>        o---o---\---B
>                 \   \
>                  `---X
> 
> I am wondering if it makes sense to record the result of
> "cherry-pick -m" as a real merge between the current HEAD and
> all the other parents of the cherry-picked merge except the one
> that is named with the <parent-number>.

Yes.

Then `rebase -i` might be able to learn how to "pick" merge commits. And then my coworkers can stop bothering me about that. And just do it themselves.

I used to think of merges as something special. I now really only look at them as being special *during* the merge process, as you may need to generate that recursive base. But otherwise its just "diff M^1..M". So why isn't it?

:-)

-- 
Shawn.