Merging with ancestor and DAG well-formedness

Dan Villiom Podlaski Christiansen danchr at gmail.com
Thu Dec 30 11:39:10 CST 2010


On 30 Dec 2010, at 18:04, Mads Kiilerich wrote:

> On 12/30/2010 05:25 PM, Wagner Bruna wrote:
>> On 12/25/2010 10:26 PM, Mads Kiilerich wrote:
>>> Please share your opinion here or comment on
>>> http://mercurial.selenic.com/bts/issue2538 .
>>>
>>> Is it an implicit invariant in the Mercurial repository data model  
>>> that
>>> a merge always merges changesets that not are each others
>>> ancestor/descendant? Or is it only something that mostly is  
>>> enforced at
>>> the command line API?
>>>
>>> Is it a bug if we somehow ends up with a merge changeset where the
>>> parents are linearly related?
>>
>> Since merges between ancestors can happen rather easily in workflows
>> using named branches (see eg. crew 15b8a652b558 or 3cb0559e44d0),  
>> IMHO
>> the code needs to deal properly with those.
>
> Sure.
>
> After 9e7e24052745 "properly" is defined as a fast forward merge,  
> giving a changeset with one parent which is on another branch.

Won't this leave a dangling head on the branch?

--

Dan Villiom Podlaski Christiansen
danchr at gmail.com

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 1943 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial-devel/attachments/20101230/5e46154c/attachment.bin>


More information about the Mercurial-devel mailing list