Linus Torvalds [off-list ref] writes:
Actually, it's trivial to convert to other SCM's, although I guess the
conversion tools haven't really tried. You can always turn it into a
series of multiple merges. Yes, you lose information, but it's not like
you lose a huge amount.
One thing to worry about is what tree object you would give to each of
these "artificially split" merge commits, though.
On Tue, 3 June 2008, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Linus Torvalds [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
Actually, it's trivial to convert to other SCM's, although I guess the
conversion tools haven't really tried. You can always turn it into a
series of multiple merges. Yes, you lose information, but it's not like
you lose a huge amount.
One thing to worry about is what tree object you would give to each of
these "artificially split" merge commits, though.
There shouldn't be, I think, a problem if octopus merge was done using
'octopus' merge strategy, which requires IIRC tree-level (trivial)
merge. But true, it is a complication, unless we fake history more,
and always use result for octopus merge as a tree.
--
Jakub Narebski
Poland