Hi, Quoting "Nicolas Barbier" <nicolas.barb...@gmail.com>:
ISTM that back-patching
I take this to mean "back-patching by cherry picking".
a change to a file that wasn't modified on the back-branch leads exactly to merging a change to a (file-wise) ancestor?
Regarding the file's contents - and therefore the immediately visible result - that's correct. However, for a merge, the two ancestor revisions are stored, where as with cherry-pinging this information is lost (at least for git).
So, trying to merge on top of a cherry-pick, git must merge these changes again (which might or might not work). Merging on top of merging works just fine.
Regards Markus Wanner -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
