Subject: Re: Specifying revisions in the future

From: Andreas Schwab <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 00:08:37 +0100

"Philip Oakley" <[email-masked]> writes:

> Is there also a rule missing for X+2, viewed from D, in this example
>
>X<---Y<---Z<---
>          \          \
>A<----B<----C<----D

This is difficult to interpret since it has some extra indent, let's
assume that Z is the second parent of D and Y the second parent of B.

> as to which order the first parent rule should _not_ be applied when D's
> first parent chain doesn't reach X (it reaches A).
> Using 'oldest' first for alternate parent testing would make X+2 = B,
> whilst 'newest' first would make X+2=Z. I have used the chain order for
> newest/oldest', rather than commit date.

The rule should be to follow the leftmost parent as far as possible.
That means that X+2->D is B.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, [email-masked]
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."