undef/git-commit-vandalism
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Merge branch 'po/fix-doc-merge-base-illustration'

Browse Source 
Some AsciiDoc formatter mishandles a displayed illustration with
tabs in it.  Adjust a few of them in merge-base documentation to
work around them.

* po/fix-doc-merge-base-illustration:
  doc: fix the 'revert a faulty merge' ASCII art tab spacing
  doc: fix merge-base ASCII art tab spacing
This commit is contained in:
Junio C Hamano 2016-10-26 13:14:55 -07:00
commit 4abeeb62a0
2 changed files with 21 additions and 21 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

26
Documentation/git-merge-base.txt
View File

@ -80,8 +80,8 @@ which is reachable from both 'A' and 'B' through the parent relationship.
For example, with this topology: For example, with this topology:
o---o---o---B o---o---o---B
/ /
---o---1---o---o---o---A ---o---1---o---o---o---A
the merge base between 'A' and 'B' is '1'. the merge base between 'A' and 'B' is '1'.
@ -116,11 +116,11 @@ the best common ancestor of all commits.
When the history involves criss-cross merges, there can be more than one When the history involves criss-cross merges, there can be more than one
'best' common ancestor for two commits. For example, with this topology: 'best' common ancestor for two commits. For example, with this topology:
---1---o---A ---1---o---A
\ / \ /
X X
/ \ / \
---2---o---o---B ---2---o---o---B
both '1' and '2' are merge-bases of A and B. Neither one is better than both '1' and '2' are merge-bases of A and B. Neither one is better than
the other (both are 'best' merge bases). When the `--all` option is not given, the other (both are 'best' merge bases). When the `--all` option is not given,
@ -154,13 +154,13 @@ topic origin/master`, the history of remote-tracking branch
`origin/master` may have been rewound and rebuilt, leading to a `origin/master` may have been rewound and rebuilt, leading to a
history of this shape: history of this shape:
o---B1 o---B1
/ /
---o---o---B2--o---o---o---B (origin/master) ---o---o---B2--o---o---o---B (origin/master)
\ \
B3 B3
\ \
Derived (topic) Derived (topic)
where `origin/master` used to point at commits B3, B2, B1 and now it where `origin/master` used to point at commits B3, B2, B1 and now it
points at B, and your `topic` branch was started on top of it back points at B, and your `topic` branch was started on top of it back

16
Documentation/howto/revert-a-faulty-merge.txt
View File

@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ The history immediately after the "revert of the merge" would look like
this: this:
---o---o---o---M---x---x---W ---o---o---o---M---x---x---W
/ /
---A---B ---A---B
where A and B are on the side development that was not so good, M is the where A and B are on the side development that was not so good, M is the
@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ After the developers of the side branch fix their mistakes, the history
may look like this: may look like this:
---o---o---o---M---x---x---W---x ---o---o---o---M---x---x---W---x
/ /
---A---B-------------------C---D ---A---B-------------------C---D
where C and D are to fix what was broken in A and B, and you may already where C and D are to fix what was broken in A and B, and you may already
@ -81,7 +81,7 @@ In such a situation, you would want to first revert the previous revert,
which would make the history look like this: which would make the history look like this:
---o---o---o---M---x---x---W---x---Y ---o---o---o---M---x---x---W---x---Y
/ /
---A---B-------------------C---D ---A---B-------------------C---D
where Y is the revert of W. Such a "revert of the revert" can be done where Y is the revert of W. Such a "revert of the revert" can be done
@ -93,14 +93,14 @@ This history would (ignoring possible conflicts between what W and W..Y
changed) be equivalent to not having W or Y at all in the history: changed) be equivalent to not having W or Y at all in the history:
---o---o---o---M---x---x-------x---- ---o---o---o---M---x---x-------x----
/ /
---A---B-------------------C---D ---A---B-------------------C---D
and merging the side branch again will not have conflict arising from an and merging the side branch again will not have conflict arising from an
earlier revert and revert of the revert. earlier revert and revert of the revert.
---o---o---o---M---x---x-------x-------* ---o---o---o---M---x---x-------x-------*
/ / / /
---A---B-------------------C---D ---A---B-------------------C---D
Of course the changes made in C and D still can conflict with what was Of course the changes made in C and D still can conflict with what was
@ -111,13 +111,13 @@ faulty A and B, and redone the changes on top of the updated mainline
after the revert, the history would have looked like this: after the revert, the history would have looked like this:
---o---o---o---M---x---x---W---x---x ---o---o---o---M---x---x---W---x---x
/ \ / \
---A---B A'--B'--C' ---A---B A'--B'--C'
If you reverted the revert in such a case as in the previous example: If you reverted the revert in such a case as in the previous example:
---o---o---o---M---x---x---W---x---x---Y---* ---o---o---o---M---x---x---W---x---x---Y---*
/ \ / / \ /
---A---B A'--B'--C' ---A---B A'--B'--C'
where Y is the revert of W, A' and B' are rerolled A and B, and there may where Y is the revert of W, A' and B' are rerolled A and B, and there may
@ -129,7 +129,7 @@ lot of overlapping changes that result in conflicts. So do not do "revert
of revert" blindly without thinking.. of revert" blindly without thinking..
---o---o---o---M---x---x---W---x---x ---o---o---o---M---x---x---W---x---x
/ \ / \
---A---B A'--B'--C' ---A---B A'--B'--C'
In the history with rebased side branch, W (and M) are behind the merge In the history with rebased side branch, W (and M) are behind the merge