Re: [GIT PULL] GPIO bulk changes for kernel v4.6

2016-03-19 Thread Junio C Hamano
Linus Torvalds writes: > The code in the recursive merge that allows this to happen is this: > ... > And I do think that's right, and I think it's clever, and it goes back to > 2006: > > 934d9a24078e merge-recur: if there is no common ancestor, fake empty one > > but I think there should be an

Re: [GIT PULL] GPIO bulk changes for kernel v4.6

2016-03-19 Thread Junio C Hamano
Johannes Schindelin writes: > Hi Linus, > > On Fri, 18 Mar 2016, Linus Torvalds wrote: > >> I thought git didn't merge two branches that have no common base by >> default, but it seems it will happily do so. > > What happened to "The coolest merge EVER!"? > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.c

Re: [GIT PULL] GPIO bulk changes for kernel v4.6

2016-03-19 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 11:07 PM, Laxman Dewangan wrote: > > For creating the repo and branch, I just followed the instruction from wiki > https://help.github.com/articles/create-a-repo/ So you shouldn't have created a new repo at all, you should just have cloned an existing one (that gets you a

Re: [GIT PULL] GPIO bulk changes for kernel v4.6

2016-03-19 Thread Junio C Hamano
Linus Torvalds writes: > It's literally just the fact that "git merge" does it with no extra > flags or checks. I'd like people to have to be aware of what they are > doing when they merge two different projects, not do it by mistake. > > So making it conditional on a flag like "--no-common-root"

Re: [GIT PULL] GPIO bulk changes for kernel v4.6

2016-03-18 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 7:32 AM, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > On Fri, 18 Mar 2016, Linus Torvalds wrote: > >> I thought git didn't merge two branches that have no common base by >> default, but it seems it will happily do so. > > What happened to "The coolest merge EVER!"? > > http://thr

Re: [GIT PULL] GPIO bulk changes for kernel v4.6

2016-03-18 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> I don't think the original "resolve" did it, for example. You can't do >> a three-way merge without a base. > > Yes, and that continues to this day: Yeah, "octopus" also refuses it cleanly: common=$(git merge-base --all $SHA1 $M

Re: [GIT PULL] GPIO bulk changes for kernel v4.6

2016-03-18 Thread Johannes Schindelin
Hi Linus, On Fri, 18 Mar 2016, Linus Torvalds wrote: > I thought git didn't merge two branches that have no common base by > default, but it seems it will happily do so. What happened to "The coolest merge EVER!"? http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/5126/ Ciao, Dscho