Re: What's cooking in git.git (Apr 2012, #05; Thu, 12)

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx>]

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Trivially tested with
>
>     git merge HEAD^ HEAD^^
>
> which did the wrong thing before, and now works.
>
>                        Linus
>
> ---
>  builtin/merge.c |    3 +--
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/builtin/merge.c b/builtin/merge.c
> index 016a4dbee3b5..28fb5c9d6ada 100644
> --- a/builtin/merge.c
> +++ b/builtin/merge.c
> @@ -1370,8 +1370,7 @@ int cmd_merge(int argc, const char **argv, const
> char *prefix)
>
>         if (!common)
>                 ; /* No common ancestors found. We need a real merge. */
> -       else if (!remoteheads->next && !common->next &&
> -                       common->item == remoteheads->item) {
> +       else if (!parents->next && parents->item == head_commit) {

When everybody in remote_heads is an ancestor of the current HEAD,
finalize_parents() would have reduced parents to a single element list
with HEAD on it, and we are "already up-to-date".  Ok.

I wonder if use of remoteheads later in the same function are correct,
though.  We equate "!remoteheads->next" and "We are not doing octopus",
for example.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html