From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: spurious fail of git merge after rebasing Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 02:10:27 -0400 Message-ID: <20110418061027.GA26221@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <201104160045.12633.davd@bart.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: "D. A. van Delft" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Apr 18 08:10:51 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QBhfa-0008WV-Ek for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 08:10:46 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751923Ab1DRGKc (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Apr 2011 02:10:32 -0400 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([99.108.226.0]:53909 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751432Ab1DRGKa (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Apr 2011 02:10:30 -0400 Received: (qmail 30624 invoked by uid 107); 18 Apr 2011 06:11:23 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 02:11:23 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 18 Apr 2011 02:10:27 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201104160045.12633.davd@bart.nl> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 12:45:12AM +0200, D. A. van Delft wrote: > Point is, I have found a scenario where sometimes git fails on > a specific merge. > Each time I start with the same identical git repository > (archived once and restored each time before a run) and run > the same fixed series of rebases and merges on it. Once in a > while it fails with a merge conflict, sometimes at first try, > sometimes after 10+ times. I have a canned set of testcases > which reproduces this behaviour. I have also narrowed it down > somewhat on how to work around, or prevent it from occurring. > > However, given that it doesn't always fail or succeed, is > unexpected. Yeah, git should generally be deterministic. Can you show us your test case? -Peff