git@vger.kernel.org list mirror (unofficial, one of many)
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: Wang Yugui <wangyugui@e16-tech.com>, git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs/format-patch: mention handling of merges
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2021 20:48:28 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YDRe7AAOnHPmAhp4@coredump.intra.peff.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqqblcb60fz.fsf@gitster.g>

On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 05:24:16PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> > I think one could argue that any merge information (including conflict
> > resolution) works against the root notion of format-patch, which is a
> > set of changes that can be applied on a range of basesa.
> 
> That's true and it was the primary motive for omiting merges.
> 
> > But even that I
> > would be hesitant to commit to (since --base exists now).
> 
> I am not quite sure what --base has to throw into the equation.  The
> information --base gives is often useful when I want to learn where
> the patches were taken from, but that does not restrict where the
> patches are actually applied to in any meaningful way (iow, "on a
> range of bases" part is not affected).

What I meant is that without "--base", telling somebody "here is the
merge you should replay on top of these other patches" is virtually
meaningless. You cannot know what the merge base would be! So you might
be merging in other random crap, and you might or might not see the same
conflicts.

But in a world with --base, I can imagine some people recreating whole
sequences of the history graph by using "--base" along with some (to be
invented) format for representing a merge via email. That mode would
certainly not be the default, but at least at that point it is
conceivably useful. Sort of like a bundle, but more human-readable (it
would also need committer info to recreate the commit ids perfectly, of
course).

All of which meant only to argue that "it is not possible or not useful
to represent a merge in an email" is something that could change in the
future. :)

-Peff

  reply	other threads:[~2021-02-23  1:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-02-22 13:16 git format-patch lost the last part when branch merge Wang Yugui
2021-02-22 22:57 ` Jeff King
2021-02-22 23:08   ` [PATCH] docs/format-patch: mention handling of merges Jeff King
2021-02-22 23:31     ` Junio C Hamano
2021-02-22 23:40       ` Jeff King
2021-02-23  1:24         ` Junio C Hamano
2021-02-23  1:48           ` Jeff King [this message]
2021-02-22 23:25   ` git format-patch lost the last part when branch merge Junio C Hamano
2021-02-24  4:24   ` Elijah Newren
2021-02-24  4:50     ` Jeff King

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

  List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=YDRe7AAOnHPmAhp4@coredump.intra.peff.net \
    --to=peff@peff.net \
    --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=gitster@pobox.com \
    --cc=wangyugui@e16-tech.com \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH] docs/format-patch: mention handling of merges' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

Code repositories for project(s) associated with this inbox:

	https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).