From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS3215 2.6.0.0/16 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::1:20]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D6BA1F45A for ; Fri, 28 Oct 2022 08:20:40 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: dcvr.yhbt.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="DVemJAq5"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230012AbiJ1IUf (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Oct 2022 04:20:35 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:36248 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229668AbiJ1IUd (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Oct 2022 04:20:33 -0400 Received: from mail-lf1-x12a.google.com (mail-lf1-x12a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12a]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D6D6635EA for ; Fri, 28 Oct 2022 01:20:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf1-x12a.google.com with SMTP id r12so7113154lfp.1 for ; Fri, 28 Oct 2022 01:20:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=h/T4AGrqnrwMhDfI0js1nhvseIgslyQVVwYbZwR2xTU=; b=DVemJAq5X+VGxT4PkV34ANMNeATSjIReqjpLzyKU6My55XZNU5yASKUbkj29ofgXWD WYKbv9gbsroBWR2/PgDDFsON1kzOasTOdYGOgpZPFN8Gazd+ECt+v7Sz7R7W1V1vZOHS 227ucIeni1qlEeXWBj5WI538ujBenI80mxq06hdcVBidPr8LMsAi6Wt10RR8k0n5y7xW 9z24n5Q3YtWk4RdtZGxag+bTmnUVPVOUKM8xKDHGDyLptt29RS79h9eMdShdTOd9boaM 0Nn/JG5CKdIPiYClgCr85dkhVn+n736VBstItMtBX+8P3UeX2rc/nYvI5SItAAP6wW9X 4vKA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=h/T4AGrqnrwMhDfI0js1nhvseIgslyQVVwYbZwR2xTU=; b=1L8R89QCu6/vubSb0UVqm+NfNfi5x31VeVQP1cCuHjZI7bnlfy8UZxfdWJnp4vOpk6 16nYfUFJuTHtIYNBXpwmf9KOkk4v2HkRwhc/hOnbdHQAIShsuo3I6Xvhe4hcPj0vwNyy kMedT/d4ND6raoLxX4bi8j0seaU4zPsWMxH8iK/iTKIvPj59PL32ttm0+1y5HguIDGHQ 4Dlg9ynzAIhj4lvE9nEVyhs5df+q3wVE+qOWon+6agNzIPDtzQ+EjpExSn/C6OR0exSu wi/3LJobheX+762whNM7I2IZtfKhGkf4SiijpxD6lkqax0J+hBuQdNTQRQ9S6LYPRtHB GG0Q== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf3+ne89Z+A47XCyDyuELzH/mw3TF/lQwNNf2aa1DM1zueblq/rX EYcPERckrr0v5JFdefTawc/Oitw6cLCHftFATds= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM5z9E44gQVr5WV1SDpI39P/w5s9t6ynngThDQTMuEn2BxCdCj2jb+RJn3zjv+CM8SwpTvuUNvmTt5Ogbx4qdJY= X-Received: by 2002:ac2:5e70:0:b0:4a9:cd8b:980b with SMTP id a16-20020ac25e70000000b004a9cd8b980bmr12264007lfr.516.1666945230643; Fri, 28 Oct 2022 01:20:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Elijah Newren Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2022 01:20:18 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] merge-tree.c: add --merge-base= option To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Kyle Zhao via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, Kyle Zhao Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 11:09 AM Junio C Hamano wrote: > [...] > Wouldn't it be sufficient to update the UI to > > git merge-tree [--write-tree] [] [] > git merge-tree [--trivial-merge] > > IOW, when you want to supply the base, you'd be explicit and ask for > the new "write-tree" mode, i.e. > > $ git merge-tree --write-tree $(git merge-base branch^ branch) HEAD branch > > would be how you would use merge-tree to cherry-pick the commit at > the tip of the branch on top of the current commit. This was my thought too; but would we be painting ourselves into a corner if we ever want to make merge-tree support octopus merges? Also, why did you write $(git merge-base branch^ branch) rather than just branch^ ? > I also have to wonder how this should interact with a topic that is > in-flight to feed multiple merge-tree requests from the standard > input to have a single process perform multiple (not necessarily > related) merges. Elijah knows much better, but my gut feeling is > that it shouldn't be hard to allow feeding an extra commit on the > same line to be used as the base. Yeah, I don't think that'd be too hard...if we could rule out ever supporting octopus merges in merge-tree (which I'm not so sure is a good assumption). Otherwise, we might need to figure out the appropriate backward-compatible input parsing (and output format changes?)