Re: Specifying revisions in the future
- From
Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org>
- Date
- Feb 5, 2012, 23:08 UTC
- Message-ID
- <m2obtcx4i2.fsf@igel.home>
- In-Reply-To
- <178AA8FDB02246D9AA9416C0D54E51A8@PhilipOakley>
"Philip Oakley" <philipoakley@iee.org> writes:
Show 5 quoted lines
> Is there also a rule missing for X+2, viewed from D, in this example > >X<---Y<---Z<--- > \ \ >A<----B<----C<----D
This is difficult to interpret since it has some extra indent, let's assume that Z is the second parent of D and Y the second parent of B.
Show 5 quoted lines
> as to which order the first parent rule should _not_ be applied when D's > first parent chain doesn't reach X (it reaches A). > Using 'oldest' first for alternate parent testing would make X+2 = B, > whilst 'newest' first would make X+2=Z. I have used the chain order for > newest/oldest', rather than commit date.
The rule should be to follow the leftmost parent as far as possible. That means that X+2->D is B.
Andreas.
-- Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5 "And now for something completely different."