Re: who's on first? - following first parent and merge-management

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Holger Hellmuth <hellmuth@ira.uka.de> writes:

> On 09.03.2012 13:29, Johannes Sixt wrote:
>> Am 3/9/2012 13:05, schrieb Holger Hellmuth:
>>> On 08.03.2012 18:30, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>>> Johannes Sixt<j.sixt@viscovery.net>   writes:
>>>> ...
>>>> I think the underlying mechanism needed to implement the above
>>>> shares a lot with what Jeff called "crazy idea", but where you would
>>>> want to be after such a merge may be different in these two cases.
>>>
>>> I don't think there is much question that you should still be in the same
>>> branch. Not because you necessarily want to be in that branch. But because
>>> it would be surprising if git-merge changed your branch sometimes and most
>>> times not.
>>
>> I don't think that it is so clear-cut.
>> ...
> I see we have different ideas. I envisioned --into to be the equivalent of
> git checkout master
> git merge topic
> git checkout topic
>
> and in that case index and worktree would be topic naturally.

That is why I rewrote it to "git merge-to master" in my response,
and said that there are two slightly different workflow ingredients
that can be implemented with a similar mechanism.