Re: Rewriting bzrmerge.el

[David Engster]

Stefan Monnier writes:
>> So, with bzr, we could pretty easily commit only the meta-data of
>> skipped commits, so that they were regarded as merged.  But being the
>> stupid content tracker that Git is, I think that ship has sailed.
>
> AFAICT, there is no difference between Git and Bzr in this respect.
>
>> We can of course cherry-pick a commit with the 'ours' merge strategy,
>> but that will of course change the SHA1...
>
> bzrmerge.el does not cherry-pick and neither should gitmerge.el.

OK: It gradually builds up a merge from several small ones using
different strategies.

> It should identify those commits that are "backports" (or similar) and
> merge them with the `ours' strategy (which will indeed leave the files
> unchanged while affecting the metadata, AFAIK).

But after a merge, 'git log emacs-24 ^master' should be empty, just like
'bzr missing ../emacs-24 --theirs-only' was empty, right?  You cannot
achieve that with the 'ours' strategy, since it will not be the same
commit anymore.

-David