Re: merge summaries

From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: May 19, 2007, 19:24 UTC
Message-ID: <7vy7jkwr96.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <73A1C4C5-50E9-4844-85F8-00D99682B6D4@zib.de>

Steffen Prohaska <prohaska@zib.de> writes:

Show 6 quoted lines

> What is so wrong if merge summaries of pulls from you were committed
> to topic branches. Later when you pull such branches the summaries
> shouldn't be a problem. A short-log of the topic branch wouldn't
> contain the summaries.
>
> Probably I do not fully understand what "the wrong way around" means.

I think you understand it very well.

As long as you stay as a "pull-only" person, and will never ask the upstream to pull back from you, what first parent log would show would make perfectly good sense. However, once a pull from you by the upstream happens, the resulting history would get the summary in the merge you did, which is totally unwanted --- the upstream already had those summarized commits long time ago in its history.