Re: How to resolve git-am conflict (possible bug)

[Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>]

Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> Third, I wonder why it printed the same error message _twice_.
> 
> Do you have blob 7ea52b1?  Otherwise you would not see two "does
> not apply" messages, so I suspect you do.  Does the patch
> cleanly apply to that blob?
> 
> More likely explanation is that you edited the patch by hand for
> some reason, and made it inapplicable to the base blob the
> "index" line records.

Yes, I have edited "post-sub-rename" patch by hand (by script) in attempt
for it to apply cleanly to the top of "pre-sub-rename" development branch.
BTW patch applies cleanly to merge-base of the branch the patch is from and
the branch it is applied to.

Why do we not record commit id in patch? And how git-rebase deals with this? 

> The first "patch does not apply" comes from ll. 363 of git-am.
> After it fails because the patch does not apply to the version
> of gitweb.perl in your index, since you told it to fall back to
> three-way merge, l. 391 calls fall_back_3way, which inspects the
> patch, finds the "index" line and notices that the patch claims
> to apply to blob 7ea52b1, finds the blob in your repository, and
> prepares a temporary index with "update-index -z --index-info"
> on l. 58 successfully, tries to apply the patch again on l. 63.
> 
> However, the patch contents and the blob object name recorded on
> the index line are not necessarily consistent if you hand edited
> the patch (IOW, the context lines in the patch contents may not
> match blob 7ea52b1).

It would be nice then if git-am was more verbose, for example
"Applying patch to blob 7ea52b1... gitweb/gitweb.perl" or something
like that.

And first complaint still apply: in git-am(1) there is precious few
documentation (or at least references) about _how_ to resolve merge
conflict or failed patch (does git-apply creates *.orig and *.rej 
files?)

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Warsaw, Poland
ShadeHawk on #git