Re: What's cooking in git.git (Apr 2012, #05; Thu, 12)

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Apr 16, 2012, 17:29 UTC
Message-ID: <7vehrnwpoi.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFwkf2bOLmUCU+_pSg0OzGyfQ1x-Cy_CiczpJN3zsThNWg@mail.gmail.com>

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> writes:

Show 24 quoted lines

> Trivially tested with
>
>     git merge HEAD^ HEAD^^
>
> which did the wrong thing before, and now works.
>
>                        Linus
>
> ---
>  builtin/merge.c |    3 +--
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/builtin/merge.c b/builtin/merge.c
> index 016a4dbee3b5..28fb5c9d6ada 100644
> --- a/builtin/merge.c
> +++ b/builtin/merge.c
> @@ -1370,8 +1370,7 @@ int cmd_merge(int argc, const char **argv, const
> char *prefix)
>
>         if (!common)
>                 ; /* No common ancestors found. We need a real merge. */
> -       else if (!remoteheads->next && !common->next &&
> -                       common->item == remoteheads->item) {
> +       else if (!parents->next && parents->item == head_commit) {

When everybody in remote_heads is an ancestor of the current HEAD, finalize_parents() would have reduced parents to a single element list with HEAD on it, and we are "already up-to-date". Ok.

I wonder if use of remoteheads later in the same function are correct, though. We equate "!remoteheads->next" and "We are not doing octopus", for example.