Re: Octopus merge: unique (?) to git, but is it useful?
- From
Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>
- Date
- Jun 3, 2008, 06:39 UTC
- Message-ID
- <200806030839.58214.jnareb@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <7vy75n3zus.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
On Tue, 3 June 2008, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 9 quoted lines
> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> writes: > >> Actually, it's trivial to convert to other SCM's, although I guess the >> conversion tools haven't really tried. You can always turn it into a >> series of multiple merges. Yes, you lose information, but it's not like >> you lose a huge amount. > > One thing to worry about is what tree object you would give to each of > these "artificially split" merge commits, though.
There shouldn't be, I think, a problem if octopus merge was done using 'octopus' merge strategy, which requires IIRC tree-level (trivial) merge. But true, it is a complication, unless we fake history more, and always use result for octopus merge as a tree.
-- Jakub Narebski Poland