On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Now, if the shared patch hadn't been a patch, but a shared _commit_, then
> the thing would have been unambiguous - the shared commit would have been
> the merge point, and the revert would have clearly undone that shared
> commit.
Actually, it was a shared commit
(4aec0fb12267718c750475f3404337ad13caa8f5), which was (an ancestor of) a
candidate merge point, but wasn't the one selected. Since a different one
was chosen, it looked to the 3-way merge like a shared patch (since it
ignores the untaken parent in the merges in the history).
This should be fixable, but it'll require more cleverness in read-tree.
-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
