this:
---o---o---o---M---x---x---W
- /
+ /
---A---B
where A and B are on the side development that was not so good, M is the
merge that brings these premature changes into the mainline, x are changes
unrelated to what the side branch did and already made on the mainline,
and W is the "revert of the merge M" (doesn't W look M upside down?).
-IOW, "diff W^..W" is similar to "diff -R M^..M".
+IOW, `"diff W^..W"` is similar to `"diff -R M^..M"`.
Such a "revert" of a merge can be made with:
may look like this:
---o---o---o---M---x---x---W---x
- /
+ /
---A---B-------------------C---D
where C and D are to fix what was broken in A and B, and you may already
have some other changes on the mainline after W.
If you merge the updated side branch (with D at its tip), none of the
-changes made in A nor B will be in the result, because they were reverted
+changes made in A or B will be in the result, because they were reverted
by W. That is what Alan saw.
Linus explains the situation:
which would make the history look like this:
---o---o---o---M---x---x---W---x---Y
- /
+ /
---A---B-------------------C---D
where Y is the revert of W. Such a "revert of the revert" can be done
$ git revert W
This history would (ignoring possible conflicts between what W and W..Y
-changed) be equivalent to not having W nor 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----
- /
+ /
---A---B-------------------C---D
and merging the side branch again will not have conflict arising from an
earlier revert and revert of the revert.
---o---o---o---M---x---x-------x-------*
- / /
+ / /
---A---B-------------------C---D
Of course the changes made in C and D still can conflict with what was
after the revert, the history would have looked like this:
---o---o---o---M---x---x---W---x---x
- / \
+ / \
---A---B A'--B'--C'
If you reverted the revert in such a case as in the previous example:
---o---o---o---M---x---x---W---x---x---Y---*
- / \ /
+ / \ /
---A---B A'--B'--C'
where Y is the revert of W, A' and B' are rerolled A and B, and there may
-also be a further fix-up C' on the side branch. "diff Y^..Y" is similar
-to "diff -R W^..W" (which in turn means it is similar to "diff M^..M"),
-and "diff A'^..C'" by definition would be similar but different from that,
+also be a further fix-up C' on the side branch. `"diff Y^..Y"` is similar
+to `"diff -R W^..W"` (which in turn means it is similar to `"diff M^..M"`),
+and `"diff A'^..C'"` by definition would be similar but different from that,
because it is a rerolled series of the earlier change. There will be a
lot of overlapping changes that result in conflicts. So do not do "revert
of revert" blindly without thinking..
---o---o---o---M---x---x---W---x---x
- / \
+ / \
---A---B A'--B'--C'
In the history with rebased side branch, W (and M) are behind the merge