* Re: Branches merging by only overwrite files
2005-12-11 9:33 ` Junio C Hamano
@ 2005-12-11 11:15 ` Ben Lau
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Ben Lau @ 2005-12-11 11:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: git
Junio C Hamano wrote:
>Ben Lau <benlau@ust.hk> writes:
>
>
>> I am looking for a solution to merge two branches but do not perform
>>file level merge. Instead, I wish the result file is the copy from any
>>one of the branches.
>>
>
>It might be better to state why you need this first. It could
>be that what you really want to solve is not related to merge at
>all.
>
>
Sorry for not giving the reason to require this merge strategy. I just
afraid it need to write too long and discourge people in reading my email.
Recently, besides to use git for kernel's version control. I used it to
manage the change of a content management software called xoops. It is a
PHP system. I have maintained several websites based on this engine.
Those website's code was maintained by CVS in the past. But CVS's branch
management is quite terrible and therefore each site have their own
repository. And now I am going to merge all the sites into a single git
repository with multple branches.
Source layout of xoops:
html/class
html/themes
html/include
[[:snipped:]]
html/modules
As it is module-based CMS system, after install the core system, users
may choose to install any module to enchance their site by placing codes
under the path of 'html/modules' .
That means every user must have their own changes. To simplify the
upgrade process, users just have to replace the old files by newest
source , no matter it is the core system or modules.
Consider the following tree:
v2.0
/ \
tag1 v2.2
/ \ \
site1 site2 tag2
\
site3
Branches site1 and site2 are dervated from v2.0 and have installed
several different modules. In the tree, it may have another sites
running v2.2 like site3. Now, I am going to upgrade site2 to tag2(based
on v2.2) by merge the branches the produce the tree as follow:
v2.0
/ \
tag1 v2.2
/ \ \
site1 \ tag2
\ / \
site2 site3
But the merge is not smooth, tag2 may contains some modules that are
newer then what site2 has been installed. Replace those conflict files
from tag2 should be the simplest method , and that is why I want this
merge strategy.
>> For example, assumes it has two branches A and B, some of the files
>>are modified in both of them. In this case, `/usr/bin/merge` could not
>>be execated, it just have to choose the revision from branch A and
>>discards all the changes from B. For the rest of files, it just simply
>>choose the newest copy from A or B.
>>
>
>I wonder why you say "could not be executed". I take it to mean
>you just do not want to even when it could.
>
>
well... a typo mistake, should be "should not be execated"
>Now, it is not clear if you always want copy from branch A and
>not from branch B when both branches have the same path, or you
>want to pick one at random between A and B. If branch A kept
>the file intact and branch B modified it, what do you want to
>happen? The default "merge" semantics in git (unless you are
>using "ours" strategy) in such a case is always to take the
>version from branch B. Is that consistent with what you want?
>
>What do you exactly mean "newest copy from A or B"? What are
>you basing the "newest" determination on? The commit date of A
>and B commits, or the author date ot two?
>
>
If the file is modified in branch A, choose the revision from A.
If branch A kept the file intact and branch B modified it, It could use
the branch B's version.
In fact, It just copy files from branch A to branch B.
>Assuming that you can give reasonable and consistent answer to
>the above question to define the semantics of your "new merge
>algorithm", what you would do is to write a new script
>git-merge-benlau to implement whatever semantics you picked.
>You could model it after existing merge strategy, such as
>git-merge-resolve.sh or git-merge-stupid.sh. Then you give the
>new merge strategy to "git-merge" or "git-pull".
>
>
hmmm. Do you think my answer make sense? May be I could call it
"git-merge-direct-copy". Although it just copy and overwrite files from
a branch to another , it could help to manage web-based CMS like xoops
where add-ons are installed by source within the source tree.
>For example, if you want all the usual "trivial merges" to work
>just like the default git merge algorithms, but always take
>"our" version instead of running file-level merge when both
>sides modified a file, then you start from a copy of
>git-merge-stupid.sh, and replace "git-merge-one-file" with
>"git-merge-one-file-benlau'. Copy "git-merge-one-file.sh" to
>create another new script, "git-merge-one-file-benlau", and
>replace this line:
>
> merge "$src1" "$orig" "$src"
>
>with
>
> cat "$orig" >"$src1"
>
>and you are done.
>
>I outlined the above without knowing what you really want to
>achieve, and I do not think the resulting merge strategy makes
>much sense, but that is what I get form hacking without knowing
>what you are really trying to do ;-).
>
>
Spent some times reading the manual and source code, I found similar way
to implement. But I don't want to waste the effort in coding , that is
why I sent this email out to see would it have any solutions that don't
require to add a new algorithm and changes the source code. If no such
method, then I will start coding, at least it will be useful to me.
Thanks!!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread