[PATCH] fixes for log -v
John A Meinel
john at arbash-meinel.com
Sat Jul 16 17:41:12 BST 2005
Lalo Martins wrote:
> And so says John A Meinel on 16/07/05 21:40...
>>Lalo Martins wrote:
>>>And so says John A Meinel on 16/07/05 00:26...
>>>>Is that actually the point? For me, the point was just so that you can
>>>>merge a root id into another tree at some non-root location.
>>>Which will cause the new revision to have a different root-id than one
>>>of its ancestors, no? ;-)
>>Actually, no. The current tree gets a subdirectory with the same id as
>>the old tree's root.
> You miss my point. In your example (quoted below for those tuning in
> the thread now), and if I understand the merge code correctly, the
> latest revision of the old "lib" project will now be listed as an
> ancestor of the new "main" revision. The new revision of "main" will
> have ancestors from both "lib" and "main", therefore, it is
> mathematically necessary that it's root-id is different than *one* of
> them... right?
It depends whether it gets considered an ancestor.
If it does' then yes, you are correct.
I suppose since the only way we have right now to indicate that trees
have been merged (thus use it as a base for future merging) is to add
them to the ancestry.
So, true enough.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20050716/73807fd2/attachment.pgp
More information about the bazaar