Octopus merges: cosmetic or indispensable in some cases?

Question

I can do a merge of the octopuses of branches A and B in HEAD . Or I can do a regular merge of A , followed by a regular merge of B , and if there are no conflicts in the end with the same content. So is using an octopus really a matter of taste in what the fixation history will look like, or are there any conflicts that are easier to resolve with octopuses?

Answer 1

- the use of octopuses is really a matter of taste in what the fixation history will look like

No. 2 sources in your case are not a good example: imagine 10-20-30 branches that you should combine into a trunk, and calculate the number of merges. OM's single advantage - it can combine any number of sources in one operation

Are there any conflicts that are easier to solve with octopuses?

Octopus merge only combines non-conflicting sources, but many branches with guaranteed disjoint changes are a real-world use case

Answer 2

With octopus merge, you get only one merge union instead of several. Some people care a lot about version history and find that many merge commands are distracting.