development/git
development/git
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/git/git synced 2024-09-13 05:14:36 +00:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

merge-recur: try to merge older merge bases first

Browse source 
It seems to be the only sane way to do it: when a two-head merge is
done, and the merge-base and one of the two branches agree, the
merge assumes that the other branch has something new.

If we start creating virtual commits from newer merge-bases, and go
back to older merge-bases, and then merge with newer commits again,
chances are that a patch is lost, _because_ the merge-base and the
head agree on it. Unlikely, yes, but it happened to me.

Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
This commit is contained in:
Johannes Schindelin 2006-08-09 22:30:58 +02:00 committed by Junio C Hamano
parent 934d9a2407
commit 8918b0c9c2
1 changed files with 12 additions and 1 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

13
merge-recursive.c
View file

@ -1191,6 +1191,17 @@ static int merge_trees(struct tree *head,
return clean;
}
static struct commit_list *reverse_commit_list(struct commit_list *list)
{
struct commit_list *next = NULL, *current, *backup;
for (current = list; current; current = backup) {
backup = current->next;
current->next = next;
next = current;
}
return next;
}
/*
* Merge the commits h1 and h2, return the resulting virtual
* commit object and a flag indicating the cleaness of the merge.
@ -1216,7 +1227,7 @@ int merge(struct commit *h1,
if (ancestor)
commit_list_insert(ancestor, &ca);
else
ca = get_merge_bases(h1, h2, 1);
ca = reverse_commit_list(get_merge_bases(h1, h2, 1));
output("found %u common ancestor(s):", commit_list_count(ca));
for (iter = ca; iter; iter = iter->next)