From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 20:10:47 GMT
Subject: RE: new file leaked onto release branch
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0512141150210.3292@g5.osdl.org>
In-Reply-To: <F7DC2337C7631D4386A2DF6E8FB22B30056B83F2@hdsmsx401.amr.corp.intel.com>



On Wed, 14 Dec 2005, Brown, Len wrote:
>
> >So Len, since you seem to use "git merge" in your scripts, I 
> >suspect you have an old version of git lying around. Can you try doing just
> 
> Should I be using something different than git merge?

No, "git merge" should be fine. It's what "git pull" ends up doing 
internally, which is why I suspected an old git version: "git merge" 
should be well-tested, since it's very much what I end up using every day 
when I pull stuff.

> >	git merge-base -a 0a47c906342e2447003e207d23917dfa5c912071 d2149b542382bfc206cb28485108f6470c979566
> >
> >to see what the result is for you?
> 
> $ git merge-base -a 0a47c906342e2447003e207d23917dfa5c912071 d2149b542382bfc206cb28485108f6470c979566
> d2149b542382bfc206cb28485108f6470c979566

Ok, that's correct.

git-merge does:

	common=$(git-merge-base --all $head "$@")

and then it _should_ have triggered this case:

	case "$#,$common,$no_commit" in
	..
	1,"$1",*)
		# If head can reach all the merge then we are up to date.
		# but first the most common case of merging one remote
		echo "Already up-to-date."
		dropsave
		exit 0
		;;
	..

and thus never have created any merge messages.

That's what I get when I try this:

	git checkout -b test-merge 0a47c906342e2447003e207d23917dfa5c912071
	git merge "Testing merging" HEAD d2149b542382bfc206cb28485108f6470c979566

results in a very immediate

	"Already up-to-date."

message. Does it do that for you too?

I tested not only with current git, but also the gits that were valid on 
Nov 29 and Nov 30. All of them did this.

> Doesn't appear to be the case, as I don't have a /usr/bin/git
> IIR, months ago I tried to install the rpm and
> it failed due to some incompatibility like not groking
> a SuSE destination.  I got Dave's git tarball according
> to Jeff's howto: http://linux.yyz.us/git-howto.html
> and have been building and installing from a git repo since.
> (I found git-current tarball dated 7/21/05, so maybe it was then)
> I did, however a few months ago copy my i386 home directory over to the
> x86_64 box I use now, re-build and re-install.  Dunno
> if there may have been a hickup in that process...
> I found a backup copy of my i386 bin directory from 2005-08-25 --
> binaries still in i386 format.  But I don't think I ran that b/c
> it isn't on any PATH.  Git lives in ~/bin which is 1st in my PATH.

Hmm. It really looks like it should have been impossible to generate that 
commit with current git, which is why I'm still a bit suspicious. 

> I think the lesson I'm taking away from this is that
> as I continue to stumble forward using git I should
> immediately report anything that doesn't look quite right
> while I can still guarantee that all the clues are still
> at the scene of the crime.

I think this list has been pretty responsive to reports of strange 
behaviour, so yes. 

			Linus