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>maint
Johannes Schindelin
19 years ago
committed by
Junio C Hamano
1 changed files with 12 additions and 1 deletions
Loading…
Reference in new issue