From: Baz <brian.ewins@gmail.com>
To: Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch>
Cc: "Peter Krefting" <peter@softwolves.pp.se>,
"Git Mailing List" <git@vger.kernel.org>,
"Johannes Schindelin" <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>,
"Björn Steinbrink" <B.Steinbrink@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Clarify documentation on the "ours" merge strategy.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:54:54 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2faad3050911111254h426e24ccg93d2824f9e971521@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200911112135.25839.trast@student.ethz.ch>
2009/11/11 Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch>:
> Baz wrote:
>> 2009/11/11 Peter Krefting <peter@softwolves.pp.se>:
>> > ours::
>> > This resolves any number of heads, but the result of the
>> > - merge is always the current branch head. It is meant to
>> > + merge is always the current branch head, discarding any
>> > + changes on the merged branch. It is meant to
>>
>> I think part of the problem is that it is unclear what the "current
>> branch head" means when used in a rebase, and hence when this text is
>> included in the help for git-rebase and git-pull.
> [...]
>> Perhaps something more in the way of an explicit warning?
>>
>> ours::
>> This resolves any number of heads, but the result of the
>> merge is always the current branch head, discarding any
>> changes on the merged branch. It is meant to
>> be used to supersede old development history of side
>> branches. Note that when rebasing, the branch you are
>> rebasing onto is the "current branch head", and using this
>> strategy will lose all of your changes - unlikely to be what
>> you wanted to do.
>
> I'd much rather see this explained in the description of the rebase
> -m/-s options since it (the swap) applies to all uses of 'git rebase
> -m'. Perhaps with an extra (but short) note in the "ours"
> description, like so:
>
> diff --git i/Documentation/git-rebase.txt w/Documentation/git-rebase.txt
> index 33e0ef1..181947c 100644
> --- i/Documentation/git-rebase.txt
> +++ w/Documentation/git-rebase.txt
> @@ -228,6 +228,10 @@ OPTIONS
> Use merging strategies to rebase. When the recursive (default) merge
> strategy is used, this allows rebase to be aware of renames on the
> upstream side.
> ++
> +Note that in a rebase merge (hence merge conflict), the sides are
> +swapped: "theirs" is the to-be-applied patch, and "ours" is the so-far
> +rebased series, starting with <upstream>.
>
> -s <strategy>::
> --strategy=<strategy>::
> diff --git i/Documentation/merge-strategies.txt w/Documentation/merge-strategies.txt
> index 4365b7e..0cae1be 100644
> --- i/Documentation/merge-strategies.txt
> +++ w/Documentation/merge-strategies.txt
> @@ -33,6 +33,9 @@ ours::
> merge is always the current branch head. It is meant to
> be used to supersede old development history of side
> branches.
> ++
> +Because the sides in a rebase are swapped, using this strategy with
> +git-rebase is never a good idea.
Yes, this (with Peter's patch) makes the danger nice & clear.
Thanks!
-Baz
>
> subtree::
> This is a modified recursive strategy. When merging trees A and
>
> --
> Thomas Rast
> trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-11-11 20:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-11-02 12:26 git pull --rebase and losing commits Peter Krefting
2009-11-02 15:04 ` Thomas Rast
2009-11-02 21:34 ` Nanako Shiraishi
2009-11-02 15:10 ` Björn Steinbrink
2009-11-03 7:01 ` Peter Krefting
2009-11-03 9:52 ` Johannes Schindelin
2009-11-03 10:12 ` Peter Krefting
2009-11-11 14:03 ` [PATCH] Clarify documentation on the "ours" merge strategy Peter Krefting
2009-11-11 15:13 ` Baz
2009-11-11 20:35 ` Thomas Rast
2009-11-11 20:54 ` Baz [this message]
2009-11-11 21:02 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-11-11 21:30 ` [PATCH] " Nicolas Sebrecht
2009-11-11 23:37 ` Thomas Rast
2009-11-12 7:55 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-11-12 9:41 ` Peter Krefting
2009-11-14 2:12 ` Nanako Shiraishi
2009-11-15 9:10 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-11-16 8:20 ` Peter Krefting
2009-11-12 9:55 ` Björn Steinbrink
2009-11-15 18:25 ` [PATCH 0/3] Document and refuse rebase -s ours Thomas Rast
2009-11-15 18:25 ` [PATCH 1/3] Documentation: clarify 'ours' merge strategy Thomas Rast
2009-11-15 18:25 ` [PATCH 2/3] rebase docs: clarify --merge and --strategy Thomas Rast
2009-11-15 21:05 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-11-15 21:11 ` Thomas Rast
2009-11-15 18:25 ` [PATCH 3/3] rebase: refuse to rebase with -s ours Thomas Rast
2009-11-15 18:39 ` Sverre Rabbelier
2009-11-15 18:44 ` Thomas Rast
2009-11-16 12:35 ` Johannes Schindelin
2009-11-16 19:57 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-11-16 21:25 ` Johannes Schindelin
2009-11-16 21:45 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-11-16 22:04 ` Sverre Rabbelier
2009-11-16 23:04 ` A Large Angry SCM
2009-11-15 21:04 ` [PATCH 0/3] Document and refuse rebase " Junio C Hamano
2009-11-15 21:13 ` Thomas Rast
2009-11-03 10:12 ` git pull --rebase and losing commits Thomas Rast
2009-11-03 4:27 ` Randal L. Schwartz
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=2faad3050911111254h426e24ccg93d2824f9e971521@mail.gmail.com \
--to=brian.ewins@gmail.com \
--cc=B.Steinbrink@gmx.de \
--cc=Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peter@softwolves.pp.se \
--cc=trast@student.ethz.ch \
/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).