From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Obscure error/warning/information message from git pull Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 16:36:24 +0100 Organization: Organization?!? Message-ID: <87oas3gq2v.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <20141114230235.GF3168@acm.acm> <20141117141123.GA4294@acm.acm> <83lhn89zxn.fsf@gnu.org> <83bno49xtw.fsf@gnu.org> <20141118224326.GA5167@acm.acm> <87mw7n8k0f.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <20141119135530.GA3986@acm.acm> <87ioib8b86.fsf@Rainer.invalid> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1416411421 12175 80.91.229.3 (19 Nov 2014 15:37:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 15:37:01 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Nov 19 16:36:54 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Xr7JN-0004R1-Pq for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 16:36:53 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:59078 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xr7JN-0003u8-E8 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 10:36:53 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50594) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xr7JE-0003tI-DG for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 10:36:50 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xr7J8-0006Y5-LB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 10:36:44 -0500 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:50667) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xr7J8-0006Y1-Ep for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 10:36:38 -0500 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Xr7J7-0004Kd-Fm for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 16:36:37 +0100 Original-Received: from x2f4a1bf.dyn.telefonica.de ([2.244.161.191]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 16:36:37 +0100 Original-Received: from dak by x2f4a1bf.dyn.telefonica.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2014 16:36:37 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 33 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: x2f4a1bf.dyn.telefonica.de X-Face: 2FEFf>]>q>2iw=B6, xrUubRI>pR&Ml9=ao@P@i)L:\urd*t9M~y1^:+Y]'C0~{mAl`oQuAl \!3KEIp?*w`|bL5qr,H)LFO6Q=qx~iH4DN; i"; /yuIsqbLLCh/!U#X[S~(5eZ41to5f%E@'ELIi$t^ Vc\LWP@J5p^rst0+('>Er0=^1{]M9!p?&:\z]|;&=NP3AhB!B_bi^]Pfkw User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:9O7fhyZKt3dn20cXDcKKbiPusJg= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 80.91.229.3 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:177763 Archived-At: Achim Gratz writes: > Alan Mackenzie writes: >> OK, commit A might have been made on some other branch not in the >> diagram. But commit A was made before commit B (that is what these lines >> _mean_) and commit B was made before branch bar was created (and possibly >> before branch foo if that was branched of of B also, rather than being >> the continuation of the branch A was made on). > > No, that's only what the published or local history looks like. > >>> > Are you saying that at B, when bar is branched from foo, git discards >>> > all information about this branching, remembering only that there are two >>> > branches which are henceforth of fully equal status where before there >>> > was just one? >> >>> Again, the branch diagram tells you nothing about the sequence of >>> events. >> >> It must do. D is based on C is based on B, and F is based on E is based >> ob B, which in its turn is based on A. Commit D thus happened after C, >> etc. We have a partial ordering, not a total ordering though. > > When that graph was constructed the objects must have been available in > that order. That doesn't mean they would have had to be created that > way. The parent commit ids are one of the things hashed into a child commit id, so in that sense there is an commit creation partial ordering. Branches aren't part of commits, however. -- David Kastrup