From: David Kastrup Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:33:18 GMT Subject: Re: inexplicable failure to merge recursively across cherry-picks Message-ID: <858x6bw975.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> In-Reply-To: <20071010102528.GB20390@lapse.madduck.net> martin f krafft writes: > also sprach Linus Torvalds [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