From: Michael Meeks <michael.meeks@novell.com>
To: git@vger.kernel.org
Cc: kendy@novell.com, Norbert Thiebaud <nthiebaud@gmail.com>
Subject: libreoffice merge issue #2 ...
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 14:20:33 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1298384433.32648.161.camel@lenovo-w500> (raw)
Hi guys,
So - again, I'm a clueless git user :-) basically the same setup and
reproduction issue as last time, except I'm now purely using (hopefully)
a stable git: version 1.7.3.4
Setup:
git clone git://anongit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/libs-core
git checkout integration/dev300_m98
git remote add stage git://anongit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/staging/libs-core
git fetch stage
Reproduce:
git merge stage/dev300
Then have a look at:
ucb/qa/complex/tdoc/CheckTransientDocumentsDocumentContent.java
a file that (AFAICS) we have made no change on in our master branch,
but has had a couple of changes in dev300; I see sections like this:
import com.sun.star.ucb.XContent;
<<<<<<< HEAD
import com.sun.star.ucb.XContentAccess;
import com.sun.star.ucb.XContentIdentifier;
import com.sun.star.ucb.XContentIdentifierFactory;
import com.sun.star.ucb.XContentProvider;
=======
>>>>>>> stage/ooo/dev300
I would expect no conflicts. These conflicts seem to come from a later
commit on the ooo/dev300 branch:
commit 01ed463f7e1ea8b5d290273203386c0a76378c08
Author: Lars Langhans <lla@openoffice.org>
Date: Tue Jun 8 08:35:09 2010 +0200
sb123:#i111449# cleanups in ucb qa/complex tests
yet, this was based on the previous commit:
commit 89f7530c91745d16ab2cb59014c7b1543967e0b4
Author: Jens-Heiner Rechtien <hr@openoffice.org>
Date: Fri Feb 12 15:01:35 2010 +0100
changefileheader2: #i109125#: change source file copyright notice
from Sun Microsystems to Oracle; remove CVS style keywords (RCSfile,
Revision)
That is present (although clearly with a different hash) in both
repositories.
So if I have a branch with commits A -> F and master has commits A -> D
- (and nothing else) I would expect merging that branch to yield state
'F' without conflicts; but most likely I'm missing something, and
perhaps there is some subtle (whitespace related?) difference that I do
not see.
Of course, this is not the only instance I see of this sort of thing,
but hopefully it is a reasonably simple one, for a file with only a
handful of commits.
Kendy - do you think this could be caused by the application of the
de-tab-ification logic ? or do you apply that for every change ?
Thanks,
Michael.
--
michael.meeks@novell.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
reply other threads:[~2011-02-22 15:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
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=1298384433.32648.161.camel@lenovo-w500 \
--to=michael.meeks@novell.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kendy@novell.com \
--cc=nthiebaud@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox