From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 14:26:35 GMT
Subject: Re: question about a merge result
Message-ID: <20090430142635.GB23550@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <49F99AE3.5090406@gmx.net>

On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 02:34:43PM +0200, Michael Gaber wrote:

> > So merging 'b1' into master removed the B file even if in branch 'b1'
> > I restored it.
> > 
> > Could anybody explain me why this is the correct behaviour and why not
> > file 'B' is not restored as it was done in branch 'b1' ?
> 
> well, I'd say the thing is, that in b1 there is no change at all to the
> tree anymore, so when applied to master (without B) there is no b restored

That is exactly it. Git's 3-way merge doesn't look at the intervening
history at all. It looks _only_ at the two endpoints and their
merge-base (well, that is a bit of a simplification, as there may be
multiple merge-bases, but it is what is happening here).

-Peff