From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=93scar?= Fuentes Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Merging emacs-23 into trunk Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 21:20:41 +0100 Message-ID: <871v6ry5ly.fsf@telefonica.net> References: <837hglf61k.fsf@gnu.org> <8739r93rg5.fsf@telefonica.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1289506858 14556 80.91.229.12 (11 Nov 2010 20:20:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 20:20:58 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Nov 11 21:20:54 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PGddd-0005IG-Cf for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 21:20:53 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50236 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PGddc-0001kc-N1 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 15:20:52 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=54807 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PGddW-0001gl-RE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 15:20:48 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PGddV-0004yI-GS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 15:20:46 -0500 Original-Received: from impaqm3.telefonica.net ([213.4.138.3]:47348) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PGddV-0004xZ-9w for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 15:20:45 -0500 Original-Received: from IMPmailhost2.adm.correo ([10.20.102.39]) by IMPaqm3.telefonica.net with bizsmtp id Vj681f01E0r0BT63PwLi8V; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 21:20:42 +0100 Original-Received: from qcore ([83.36.171.62]) by IMPmailhost2.adm.correo with BIZ IMP id VwLh1f0071M7cV71iwLiaE; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 21:20:42 +0100 X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-TE-authinfo: authemail="981711563$telefonica.net" |auth_email="981711563@telefonica.net" X-TE-AcuTerraCos: auth_cuTerraCos="cosuitnetc01" In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Thu, 11 Nov 2010 14:57:40 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:132553 Archived-At: Stefan Monnier writes: >>>> You are cherry-picking here; cherry-picking is explicitly not tracked >>>> in the history DAG. >>> Actually, I'm not cherry-picking: Since all changes until A have been >>> merged, merging A..B will end up with all changes until B: I'm not >>> picking some changes and avoiding others. >>> And indeed >>> bzr merge -r A..B >>> will correctly track the history in the case where A has already been >>> merged and committed. > >> No. It will keep the order of the commits, but that's is all it does as >> far as the VC history is concerned. > > I have no idea what you mean by the above, but I have tried and tested > > bzr merge -r A..B > > and in all my tests, in the case where A has already been merged into > the current tree, it behaves exactly like > > bzr merge -r B > > with respect to history-tracking. Yes, when A (or its parent) already is on the target branch with the same revision-id as it has on the source branch. But if you cherry-picked A (instead of merging it) you will end with two instances of the commit that corresponds to A in the VC history: one corresponds to the cherry-pick and another to the merge. (It is unfortunate that `bzr merge' is used for merging history and for cherry-picking). Another case is when the parent of A is not on the target branch (with the same revision-id it has on the source branch.) Then you are cherry-picking a series of commits.