Re: Query on managing the order of commits in git merge

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Mar 23, 2021, 19:04 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqft0l3d5j.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <CAAHhmWjLAO7EBEvcizFd1otDJDq8yesaA3FyDEYPWpuSLuy=Kw@mail.gmail.com>

Linu Cherian <linuc.decode@gmail.com> writes:

Show 25 quoted lines

> A has the following commits,
> A ---> 1---2---3--4
>
> We do have another branch B, which is forked out of A and our
> features/fixes has been added
> on top of A.
> B ---->1 --2--3--4--5--6
>
>
> At a later stage, we sync branch A to the remote upstream branch
> and it becomes,
> A --> 1--2--3--4--7--8
>
> Now, when we merge A to B, the order in which the commits are merged
> into can be different based on date of commit. CMIIW
>
> Like, case 1:
>
> B --> 1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--M
>
> case 2:
>
> B-->1--2--3--4--7--8--5--6--M
>
> where M is the merge commit.

Neither is showing you made a merge. If you try gitk (or "git log --oneline --graph"), you'll see that a merge does not result in a single strand of pearls like the above.

I think your merge is working perfectly correctly, without butchering the order each branch had its commits, and adding a single merge commit 'M' that is a child of the commits at the tip of these two branches. It's just the order of commits you see when you tell the tool to show them linearly (e.g. "log" without "--graph").

There are "--topo-order" etc. options that you can influence the display order of the "log" output.