Re: question about a merge result
- From
- Michael Gaber <michael.gaber@gmx.net>
- Date
- Apr 30, 2009, 12:34 UTC
- Message-ID
- <49F99AE3.5090406@gmx.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <38b2ab8a0904300521m9e31867j7848135acfae0faa@mail.gmail.com>
Francis Moreau schrieb:
Show 43 quoted lines
> Hello, > > I'm a little bit confused about a merge I have done and the result > suprised me. Thinking about it I'm still not convinced what should be > the result. > > Here's the use case: > > $ mkdir test-git && cd test-git > $ date > A > $ date > B > $ git init > $ git add . > $ git commit -m "Init" > > So far I just created a repo with 2 files A and B > > $ git branch b1 > $ git rm B > $ git commit -m "remove B" > > Now I created a branch 'b1' and remove B file in master branch > > $ git checkout b1 > $ git rm B > $ git commit -m "remove B" > $ git revert HEAD > > Now on 'b1' I did the same as master but I thought that removing B was > a bad idea so I revert the previous commit > > $ git checkout master > $ git pull . b1 > $ ls B > ls: cannot access B: No such file or directory > > 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' ? > > thanks
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