Re: [RFC] Looking at multiple ancestors in merge

2005-08-26 Thread Daniel Barkalow
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Daniel Barkalow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I've started this, and have gotten as far as having read-tree accept > 3 > > trees and ignore everything but the last 3. Am I correct in assuming that > > if I break read-tree in any way, some test will

Re: [RFC] Looking at multiple ancestors in merge

2005-08-26 Thread Junio C Hamano
Daniel Barkalow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I've started this, and have gotten as far as having read-tree accept > 3 > trees and ignore everything but the last 3. Am I correct in assuming that > if I break read-tree in any way, some test will fail? If some test fails you would know you broke it

Re: [RFC] Looking at multiple ancestors in merge

2005-08-25 Thread Daniel Barkalow
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Daniel Barkalow wrote: > Of course, this is going to take a bit of work, because read-tree > currently puts all of its arguments into the cache and then works on > merging, and taking multiple ancestors requires putting them somewhere > else, because they won't fit in the cach

Re: [RFC] Looking at multiple ancestors in merge

2005-08-25 Thread Matthias Urlichs
Hi, Daniel Barkalow wrote: > My proposal is actually to detect when a merge is ambiguous. In order to > determine that, however, you have to evaluate multiple potential outcomes > and see if they are actually different. I'm working on an efficient way to > do that. Good. There's also a related p

Re: [RFC] Looking at multiple ancestors in merge

2005-08-24 Thread Daniel Barkalow
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, A Large Angry SCM wrote: > Daniel Barkalow wrote: > > I'm starting to work on letting the merging process see multiple > > ancestors, and I think it's messy enough that I should actually discuss > > it. > > > > Review of the issue: > > > > It is possible to lost reverts in cas

Re: [RFC] Looking at multiple ancestors in merge

2005-08-24 Thread A Large Angry SCM
Daniel Barkalow wrote: > I'm starting to work on letting the merging process see multiple > ancestors, and I think it's messy enough that I should actually discuss > it. > > Review of the issue: > > It is possible to lost reverts in cases when merging two commits with > multiple ancestors, in the

[RFC] Looking at multiple ancestors in merge

2005-08-24 Thread Daniel Barkalow
I'm starting to work on letting the merging process see multiple ancestors, and I think it's messy enough that I should actually discuss it. Review of the issue: It is possible to lost reverts in cases when merging two commits with multiple ancestors, in the following pattern: (letters representi