From: Michal Suchánek <msuchanek@suse.de>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 17:14:43 GMT
Subject: Re: Assessing about commit order in upstream Linux
Message-ID: <20200526171443.GE25173@kitsune.suse.cz>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqr1v6oh6y.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>

On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 08:21:25AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Eugeniu Rosca <erosca@de.adit-jv.com> writes:
> 
> > So, the two approaches lead to different results. If you see any false
> > assumption or mistaken belief, could you please pinpoint that? TIA.
> 
> Perhaps the assumption/belief that the set of commits in a history
> can be totally ordered is the issue?  When multiple people work
> together on a project, especially in a project where "pull --no-ff"
> is not enforced, there can exist only partial order among them?
> 
As in if you have history with two branches

   D
  / \
 B   C
  \ /
   A

commits B and C are not comparable. They are both between A and D but
the order of B and C is arbitrary. Different renderings of the history
may choose different order of B and C. This is a simle example. Linux
history is a spaghetti of tens of branches.

Thanks

Michal