On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 03:01:06PM +0200, Matěj Laitl wrote: > Lucas' repo looks like it has no his own commits in master. Therefore I > wanted > to say: Shouldn't all his `git pull git://anongit.kde.org/amarok master` > commands performed in his master branch have resulted in fast-forwards? (that > don't create the merge commit so I therefore don't call them "merges") > > E.g. `git push` without --rebase in master may still be correct if you don't > have own commits so that it results in fast-forward, that's what I wanted to > say.
I see. There is actually commit bedfbae3ed20b0676482f601cef0607f2325586a there. I presume Lucas expected his branch "master" to be, as you put it, a carbon-copy, but forgot this one commit. It made all his pull operations merges. I recommend using the options "--ff-only" and/or "--rebase" more often to avoid Git doing unwanted things. > Not in normal operation, but if you have merge conflicts and don't resolve > them > carefully, then yes. The point is that the second merge is somewhat prone to > be resolved wrong in case of reverted commits, see > https://github.com/strohel/failed-merge-plus-revert-showcase/network This problem can of course be avoided by getting rid of frequent merges. It is however not a direct consequence of these merges, but rather a consequence of sloppy merge conflict resolution. If you used a proper mergetool or at least had set merge.conflictstyle = diff3, you would know that this "b" line had been deleted in master, and you should not leave it in your merged code. And, of course, you should not do merges if you don't understand the code :) -- Edward "Hades" Toroshchin dr_lepper on irc.freenode.org
pgpZ5SNzohVtb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Amarok-devel mailing list Amarok-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok-devel
