Re: baffled again
- From
Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org>
- Date
- Aug 24, 2005, 19:33 UTC
- Message-ID
- <Pine.LNX.4.63.0508241504580.23242@iabervon.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <Pine.LNX.4.58.0508241140290.3317@g5.osdl.org>
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Now, if the shared patch hadn't been a patch, but a shared _commit_, then > the thing would have been unambiguous - the shared commit would have been > the merge point, and the revert would have clearly undone that shared > commit.
Actually, it was a shared commit (4aec0fb12267718c750475f3404337ad13caa8f5), which was (an ancestor of) a candidate merge point, but wasn't the one selected. Since a different one was chosen, it looked to the 3-way merge like a shared patch (since it ignores the untaken parent in the merges in the history).
This should be fixable, but it'll require more cleverness in read-tree.
-Daniel *This .sig left intentionally blank*