> Uwe Brauer writes:
> I now tested this (see next part) and git simply chooses a branch to
> show based on some criterion.
> From what I see in the blog post it would pick one. I don’t know which
> criteria is used. But I can test that…
> Here’s what I get when I start committing on master, then switch to a
> branch foo and finally merge foo into master:
> * commit 48ccc26e9a464df0a2e838d2338e472acede0c1e (master) (HEAD ->
master)
> |\ Merge: 97ec8a6 cf1d596
> | * commit cf1d596586a52f5902c498a2107ab3eb3f65685c (foo) (foo)
> | |
> | * commit 2787987c70c00e54d21f3ae8a8bd4ff9c55102c5 (foo~1)
> | |
> * | commit 97ec8a605921aeca0fce5ca691bbbe3ea9213ef7 (master~1)
> |/
> |
> * commit 41beb6704c82243ff0f15ab74075d05c24f5fecb (foo~2)
> As you can see, the root is misattributed to foo. So felipec simply got
> lucky that he picked an example where this command actually provides the
> same info as named branches, but the result can easily be false.
Ok thanks very much for running this test. The graph you got is pretty
confusing at least for me. So there is no magic without magic, no named
branches without named branches.
So please forget my proposal. There seems no way to have the precise
information of named branches and the flexibility of bookmarks at the
same time.
Uwe
_______________________________________________
Mercurial mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial
