Re: [RFC] [PATCH 0/5] Implement 'prior' commit object links (and

From: Sam Vilain <sam@vilain.net>
Date: May 1, 2006, 00:05 UTC
Message-ID: <445550C4.5020800@vilain.net>
In-Reply-To: <7viros1585.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 13 quoted lines

>> * "prior" - heads that represent topic branch merges
>>    
>>
>
>This is not any different from usual "parent" at all (but you
>have to think about it a bit to realize it).
> [...]
>Once you start reading the commit parent to mean " considering
>what all of these commits have, what this new commit has suits
>my purpose better", it becomes clear that the "previous" pointer
>for a branch like my "pu" is just another "parent".
>  
>

How can you look back at the merge history and determine which of these scenarios is the case?

It still looks like to me that you are recording two distinct types of parent using the same type of link. You're now just expanding the definition of parent so they look to be the same.

Actually it might be alright if you have an extra merge commit object. ie, make a complete merge of the new tips, then make a second merge that merges the two heads. It's still a little bit of a research topic to look at that mess and figure out which type of relationship each parent actually is, but if you really want to decide that is that and done is done then I guess we'll all just have to live with it or fork.

Sam.