Re: inexplicable failure to merge recursively across cherry-picks

From: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>
Date: Oct 10, 2007, 10:33 UTC
Message-ID: <858x6bw975.fsf@lola.goethe.zz>
In-Reply-To: <20071010102528.GB20390@lapse.madduck.net>

martin f krafft <madduck@madduck.net> writes:

Show 13 quoted lines

> also sprach Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> [2007.10.10.0354 +0100]:
>> Cherry-picking is immaterial. It doesn't matter how the changes
>> come into the tree. It doesn't matter what the history is. The
>> only thing git cares about is the content, and the end result.
>
> This is the part I over-estimated. I thought that Git would figure
> out that commits 1-3 had been merged into the target and thus apply,
> in sequence, only the commits from the source which had not been
> merged.
>
> Many thanks (again), Linus! Looking forward to your next content
> manager; you know, the one with artificial intelligence built in!
> You could call it "wit" :)

Well, there is also an obvious name choice when the distinguishing innovation is a well-rounded feature set, but it would cause a name collision for the equivalent of "tig".

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum