Re: git merge vs git commit

From: Matthieu Moy <matthieu.moy@imag.fr>
Date: Sep 9, 2008, 21:32 UTC
Message-ID: <vpqiqt50zve.fsf@bauges.imag.fr>
In-Reply-To: <20080909165236.GA8850@flint.arm.linux.org.uk>

Russell King <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk> writes:

Show 19 quoted lines

> Hi,
>
> Using git 1.5.4.5, I notice that the result from git merge and git commit
> are different in an unexpected way.
>
> Take the following tree:
>
>      B---C---D---E2
>     /
>   -A1
>     \
>      F---G---H---I3
>
> (letters represent commits, numbers represent where the references are).
>
> Your current head is '1', and you want to merge branches '2' and '3', so
> you use:
>
> 	git merge 2 3

AAUI, "git merge 2 3" doesn't mean "merge 2 and 3 together", but "merge 2 and 3 with the current HEAD". So, what you wanted was :

git checkout 1 git merge 2

And what you did was an octopus merge of A, E and I (which ends up being the same since A is anyway the common ancestor of E and I).

Now, this doesn't explain why the conflicted merge gives a result different from the other.

-- 
Matthieu