Re: [PATCH] merge-base: handle --fork-point without reflog

2016-10-12 Thread Stepan Kasal
Hello, thank you for this nice and quick fix of this corner case! Stepan

Re: [PATCH] merge-base: handle --fork-point without reflog

2016-10-12 Thread Junio C Hamano
Jeff King writes: > Subject: merge-base: handle --fork-point without reflog > > The --fork-point option looks in the reflog to try to find > where a derived branch forked from a base branch. However, > if the reflog for the base branch is totally empty (as it > commonly is right after cloning, wh

[PATCH] merge-base: handle --fork-point without reflog

2016-10-12 Thread Jeff King
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 12:32:09PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > > The problem seems to be that command > > git merge-base --fork-point refs/remotes/origin/tmp refs/heads/tmp > > returns nothing, because the refs are packed. > > The --fork-point option looks in the reflog to notice that the upstrea

[PATCH] merge-base-rebased

2005-04-14 Thread Daniel Barkalow
Add a dumb-but-improvable program to find a not-too-bad commit to do a three-way-merge of two commits. Signed-Off-By: Daniel Barkalow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Index: Makefile === --- 1756b578489f93999ded68ae347bef7d6063101c/Makefile (mod

Re: [PATCH] merge-base

2005-04-14 Thread Daniel Barkalow
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote: > I agree. But I did the silly "common revision tracking" part slightly > differently and in particular I already made fsck and rev-tree use the > same exact code. I think I only saw a cut-and-paste version, and I didn't want to follow that pattern. >