Re: Obscure error/warning/information message from git pull

[David Kastrup]

Achim Gratz <address@hidden> writes:

> Alan Mackenzie writes:
>> OK, commit A might have been made on some other branch not in the
>> diagram.  But commit A was made before commit B (that is what these lines
>> _mean_) and commit B was made before branch bar was created (and possibly
>> before branch foo if that was branched of of B also, rather than being
>> the continuation of the branch A was made on).
>
> No, that's only what the published or local history looks like.
>
>>> > Are you saying that at B, when bar is branched from foo, git discards
>>> > all information about this branching, remembering only that there are two
>>> > branches which are henceforth of fully equal status where before there
>>> > was just one?
>>
>>> Again, the branch diagram tells you nothing about the sequence of
>>> events.
>>
>> It must do.  D is based on C is based on B, and F is based on E is based
>> ob B, which in its turn is based on A.  Commit D thus happened after C,
>> etc.  We have a partial ordering, not a total ordering though.
>
> When that graph was constructed the objects must have been available in
> that order.  That doesn't mean they would have had to be created that
> way.

The parent commit ids are one of the things hashed into a child commit
id, so in that sense there is an commit creation partial ordering.
Branches aren't part of commits, however.

-- 
David Kastrup