From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Merges from release branch Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2021 16:18:08 +0300 Message-ID: <83lf4kl78v.fsf@gnu.org> References: <8d0be260-7b15-0b48-42e5-e5a4cc203e54@yandex.ru> <837dg4n1ix.fsf@gnu.org> <834kb8mzk1.fsf@gnu.org> <874kb8mv9q.fsf@gmail.com> <83tuj8ldgi.fsf@gnu.org> <87r1ecl9i0.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="39870"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: philipk@posteo.net, danflscr@gmail.com, theo@thornhill.no, emacs-devel@gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, dgutov@yandex.ru, larsi@gnus.org, sir@cmpwn.com To: =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28gVMOhdm9yYQ==?= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Aug 29 15:19:41 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mKKir-000AA4-21 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 29 Aug 2021 15:19:41 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:56920 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mKKio-0008CE-Ho for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 29 Aug 2021 09:19:38 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:58328) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mKKhb-0006rO-82 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 29 Aug 2021 09:18:23 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:37754) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mKKhX-0006Ne-Nr; Sun, 29 Aug 2021 09:18:19 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.95.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.95]:4393 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mKKhX-000679-BC; Sun, 29 Aug 2021 09:18:19 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87r1ecl9i0.fsf@gmail.com> (message from =?utf-8?B?Sm/Do28g?= =?utf-8?B?VMOhdm9yYQ==?= on Sun, 29 Aug 2021 13:29:27 +0100) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:273408 Archived-At: > From: João Távora > Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2021 13:29:27 +0100 > Cc: philipk@posteo.net, danflscr@gmail.com, theo@thornhill.no, > emacs-devel@gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, dgutov@yandex.ru, > larsi@gnus.org, sir@cmpwn.com > > Here's the source of my comment/confusion: normally, in a merge, I have > the expectation that the ancestors of the each branch being merged > become ancestors of the new commit, the "merge commit". That is the way > that the vast majority of merges function. However, for Emacs's > "skipped commits" it is sometimes only half-true, at best. No, it's always true, AFAIU. > For instance, 5b038491 is, according to Git, an ancestor of 8ba6a38b3 > and all 8ba6a's descendents. However, its contents -- i.e. its diff -- > are not. I think you are confusing between the ancestry in the DAG sense of the word, on the one hand, and the contents of the merged commits, OTOH. > In summary, the Emacs way of doing this confuses me (and perhaps other > Git users), as I expect a merge commit to integrate fully the > developments of two or more branches. Welcome to Git: IME, Git without confusion doesn't exist. We use the merge workflow because it's the easiest and the less dangerous one. We know for a long time that it sometimes produces confusing and/or suboptimal DAG, but we decided long ago that this is the price we are prepared to pay in order to make routine usage less error-prone for those users who are not Git experts and basically use Git commands as a cookbook they don't always understand 100%. > Anyway, what could be an alternative? We examined the alternatives when we switched to Git, and decided they all are either more complicated, or more dangerous, or both.