Re: resolving ambiguity in action stamps

[Andreas Schwab]

"Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden> writes:

> Eric S. Raymond writes:
>
>  > The problem case is this:
>  > 
>  > A <-- B <-- C <-- B <-- D
>  >               \
>  >                +--- B <-- E <- F
>  > 
>  > In this the minimal subgraph joining the clique is not totally ordered,
>  > so we don't know how to uniquely order the Bs on the branches.
>  > 
>  > To solve this problem we need a unique order relation on the branch heads.
>
> The branch heads *have* canonical names: the SHA1 of the commit.

The hash of the head doesn't define a unique order on the branches.

Andreas.

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