From: Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/9] rerere forget path: forget recorded resolution
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 20:22:31 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201001112022.31257.j6t@kdbg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7v4omte72j.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
On Montag, 11. Januar 2010, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> I ended up doing this myself. As we are dropping the postimage and adding
> a new MERGE_RR entry, I also think that it is safer to update the preimage
> with the conflict we got for this round, so I added that as well.
Thank you, it appears to work as expected. It is actually very important to
update the preimage as well, otherwise, the new postimage can contain
unrelated additional changes.
> However, I think there is a room for improvement in preimage handling.
>
> Currently, the rerere database is indexed with the conflict hash and for
> each conflict hash you can record a single preimage-postimage pair to
> replay. But you can have conflicts with the same conflict hash, but with
> slightly different contexts outside the conflicted region, and the right
> resolution can be different depending on the outside context.
I did encounter a case where the same resolution would apply to all conflicts
that have the same conflict hash, so it's not quite what you talk about. But
not all conflicts were automatically resolved. I haven't yet analyzed what
happened - it could just be that the xdl_merge call fails due to the
differences in the text immediately outside the conflict markers.
> In the traditional implementation, I punted this issue by noticing
> conflicts in the three-way merge between pre, post and this images. If
> preimage is too different from the conflicted contents we got during this
> merge, then the previous resolution should not apply.
>
> But I think the right solution would be to have more than one preimage and
> postimage pairs (preimage.0 vs postimage.0,... etc.) and try to use each
> of them in handle_path() until it finds one that can be used to cleanly
> merge with the conflict we got in thisimage during this round.
The situation happens rarely, so I don't know if we should care. OTOH, *when*
the situation arises, and a recorded resolution is applied incorrectly, it
may be quite annoying. Dunno.
-- Hannes
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-01-11 19:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-11-21 18:58 [PATCH/RFC 0/3] git rerere unresolve file Johannes Sixt
2009-11-21 19:00 ` [PATCH/RFC 1/3] rerere: keep a list of resolved files in MERGE_RR Johannes Sixt
2009-11-21 19:01 ` [PATCH/RFC 2/3] rerere: make recording of the preimage reusable Johannes Sixt
2009-11-21 19:02 ` [PATCH/RFC 3/3] git rerere unresolve file Johannes Sixt
2009-11-22 2:53 ` [PATCH/RFC 0/3] " Junio C Hamano
2009-11-22 14:19 ` Johannes Sixt
2009-11-24 23:40 ` Nanako Shiraishi
2009-12-29 21:42 ` [PATCH 0/9] Undoing conflict resolution Junio C Hamano
2009-12-29 21:42 ` [PATCH 1/9] builtin-merge.c: use standard active_cache macros Junio C Hamano
2009-12-29 21:42 ` [PATCH 2/9] resolve-undo: record resolved conflicts in a new index extension section Junio C Hamano
2009-12-29 21:42 ` [PATCH 3/9] resolve-undo: basic tests Junio C Hamano
2009-12-29 21:42 ` [PATCH 4/9] resolve-undo: allow plumbing to clear the information Junio C Hamano
2009-12-29 21:42 ` [PATCH 5/9] resolve-undo: "checkout -m path" uses resolve-undo information Junio C Hamano
2009-12-29 21:42 ` [PATCH 6/9] resolve-undo: teach "update-index --unresolve" to use resolve-undo info Junio C Hamano
2009-12-29 21:42 ` [PATCH 7/9] rerere: remove silly 1024-byte line limit Junio C Hamano
2009-12-29 21:42 ` [PATCH 8/9] rerere: refactor rerere logic to make it independent from I/O Junio C Hamano
2009-12-29 21:42 ` [PATCH 9/9] rerere forget path: forget recorded resolution Junio C Hamano
2010-01-05 21:25 ` Johannes Sixt
2010-01-06 1:06 ` Junio C Hamano
2010-01-06 8:55 ` Johannes Sixt
2010-01-06 16:58 ` Junio C Hamano
2010-01-06 21:59 ` Junio C Hamano
2010-01-08 21:55 ` Johannes Sixt
2010-01-08 23:20 ` Junio C Hamano
2010-01-11 1:58 ` Junio C Hamano
2010-01-11 19:22 ` Johannes Sixt [this message]
2010-01-11 20:05 ` Junio C Hamano
2010-01-11 21:05 ` Johannes Sixt
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=201001112022.31257.j6t@kdbg.org \
--to=j6t@kdbg.org \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).