From: Jeff King <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: Junio C Hamano <email@example.com> Cc: Wang Yugui <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com 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: <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
next prev parent 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 \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --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).