Fix a botched log-message
Stephen J. Turnbull
stephen at xemacs.org
Fri Apr 4 21:54:06 BST 2008
Matthieu Moy writes:
> > Do you understand the difference between "in principle" and "in
> > practice"?
> No, I don't understand what you mean here.
"In principle" means that the facility *could be* built. "In
practice" means it *has been* built.
> > No, you don't *totally* break anything, in fact. The reason is that
> > the rebased branch is isomorphic to the old one. git shows that it is
> > reasonable to compute these things on the fly. When you do, you'll
> > end up at either the same common ancestor, or an isomorphic one (ie,
> > one which has the same chain of trees).
> My Git doesn't do that. Just checked, I get a different,
> non-isomorphic, common ancestor.
> merging "non-rebased-first" and "non-rebased-second" works like a
> charm, and merging "rebased-second" and "non-rebased-first" fails:
Of course it will fail if you do it after merging non-rebased-second,
because git does not have the equivalencing code in it (yet).
However, if instead of comparing commit identities when you are
searching for a common ancestor (git's current behavior), you
dereference the commit and compare tree identities, you will get the
Obviously I need to do some coding to convert principle to practice to
show what I mean. I'll get back to you in a week or so.
More information about the bazaar