From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2020 19:21:49 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] revision: --include-diversions adds helpful merges
Message-ID: <20200409192149.GA4168991@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <xmqq369co5e0.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>

On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 11:55:51AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> > On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 01:20:57PM -0400, Derrick Stolee wrote:
> >
> >> In conclusion, I think "--show-pulls" provides the right context for these
> >> extra merges to show in the history view. It also roots these merges in a
> >> Git-native name (that also happens to evoke the "pull request" concept that
> >> is _not_ native to Git).
> >> 
> >> What do you think?
> >
> > Yeah, after reading more of the thread, I think the simplest way to
> > think about is "keep merges that pulled in something" with the
> > implication of "(even if the other side didn't touch anything)".
> 
> Isn't it more like "even if our side didn't touch anything", though?

I meant the _other_ other. :) I.e., the other one that is not what just
got pulled in. Which is the first parent. ;)

So yes, I think we are on the same page, and I just said it badly. Using
"our side" is better than trying to double-negate "other".

-Peff