Fix a botched log-message

Stephen J. Turnbull stephen at
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
equivalencing behavior.

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 mailing list