All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@viscovery.net>
To: Voltage Spike <voltspike@gmail.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Merge-Recursive Improvements
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:46:35 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <47B2AE6B.2030700@viscovery.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <E105587B-9E61-4A21-91F5-6310A83C3F41@gmail.com>

Voltage Spike schrieb:
> On Feb 13, 2008, at 12:39 AM, Johannes Sixt wrote:
> 
>> Voltage Spike schrieb:
>>> Third, git doesn't appear to have any sense of context when performing a
>>> merge. Another contrived example which wouldn't be flagged as a merge
>>> conflict:
>>>
>>>   ptr = malloc(len); // Added in HEAD.
>>>   init();            // Included in merge-base.
>>>   ptr = malloc(len); // Added in "merge".
>>
>> You seem to say that you want this to result in a merge conflict.
> 
> Yes, it appears that I wasn't clear that I see the above as a conflict.
> 
>> I'm opposed to this: It means that you would mark a conflict if there
>> is a
>> single unchanged line between the two changes that come from the merged
>> branches. So far it has happened for me much more frequently that such
>> merges were correct, and I should not be bothered with conflict
>> markers. I
>> conciously prefer to pay the price that such a merge is incorrect on
>> occasion.
> 
> That is why I'm hoping to make it configurable. I know that we have more
> information than during a simple patch, but it seems odd that changes
> can be occurring all around your local modifications and you'll never be
> notified.
> 
> Which leads to a different point: does this lessen the value of falling
> back to a 3-way merge during a rebase?

The current non-conflicting merges are invaluable for my workflow, which
involves lots and lots of rebasing and cherry-picking.

>> You also need to draw a border line: a single unchanged line between the
>> changes? Or better also conflict at 2 lines? Or 3?
> 
> I naturally assumed the default number of context lines: 3. If I recall
> correctly, this isn't typically configurable.

Nawww... Guess how many, many more conflicts this would report?

Practically all merges that I do are during rebase and cherry-pick. During
this work I often have changes that are separated by only a single line.
The potential merge conflicts that fall in the above category I know in
advance because I've made the changes just two minutes ago, and I can fix
them even without being reminded by a merge conflict.

IOW: I don't need conflict markers in this case - I need them not to
conflict at all.

-- Hannes

  reply	other threads:[~2008-02-13  8:47 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-02-12 22:16 Merge-Recursive Improvements Voltage Spike
2008-02-12 23:03 ` Stefan Monnier
2008-02-12 23:11 ` Junio C Hamano
2008-02-12 23:48 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-02-13  0:05   ` Johannes Schindelin
2008-02-13  1:10     ` [PATCH] xdl_merge(): introduce XDL_MERGE_ZEALOUS_ALNUM Johannes Schindelin
2008-02-13  1:34       ` Junio C Hamano
2008-02-13 11:16         ` Johannes Schindelin
2008-02-15 17:32           ` Junio C Hamano
2008-02-15 18:17             ` Linus Torvalds
2008-02-15 18:23               ` Johannes Schindelin
2008-02-17 19:06               ` Johannes Schindelin
2008-02-17 19:07                 ` [PATCH 1/2] xdl_merge(): make XDL_MERGE_ZEALOUS output simpler Johannes Schindelin
2008-02-17 19:07                   ` [PATCH(RFC) 2/2] xdl_merge(): introduce XDL_MERGE_ZEALOUS_ALNUM Johannes Schindelin
2008-02-18  8:35                   ` [PATCH 1/2] xdl_merge(): make XDL_MERGE_ZEALOUS output simpler Junio C Hamano
2008-02-18 11:33                     ` Johannes Schindelin
2008-02-13  2:06       ` [PATCH] xdl_merge(): introduce XDL_MERGE_ZEALOUS_ALNUM Linus Torvalds
2008-02-13 11:22         ` Johannes Schindelin
2008-02-13  7:39 ` Merge-Recursive Improvements Johannes Sixt
2008-02-13  8:17   ` Steffen Prohaska
2008-02-13  8:21   ` Voltage Spike
2008-02-13  8:46     ` Johannes Sixt [this message]
2008-02-15 19:21   ` Junio C Hamano

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=47B2AE6B.2030700@viscovery.net \
    --to=j.sixt@viscovery.net \
    --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=voltspike@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.