git.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@viscovery.net>
To: Voltage Spike <voltspike@gmail.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Merge-Recursive Improvements
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:46:35 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <47B2AE6B.2030700@viscovery.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <E105587B-9E61-4A21-91F5-6310A83C3F41@gmail.com>

Voltage Spike schrieb:
> On Feb 13, 2008, at 12:39 AM, Johannes Sixt wrote:
> 
>> Voltage Spike schrieb:
>>> Third, git doesn't appear to have any sense of context when performing a
>>> merge. Another contrived example which wouldn't be flagged as a merge
>>> conflict:
>>>
>>>   ptr = malloc(len); // Added in HEAD.
>>>   init();            // Included in merge-base.
>>>   ptr = malloc(len); // Added in "merge".
>>
>> You seem to say that you want this to result in a merge conflict.
> 
> Yes, it appears that I wasn't clear that I see the above as a conflict.
> 
>> I'm opposed to this: It means that you would mark a conflict if there
>> is a
>> single unchanged line between the two changes that come from the merged
>> branches. So far it has happened for me much more frequently that such
>> merges were correct, and I should not be bothered with conflict
>> markers. I
>> conciously prefer to pay the price that such a merge is incorrect on
>> occasion.
> 
> That is why I'm hoping to make it configurable. I know that we have more
> information than during a simple patch, but it seems odd that changes
> can be occurring all around your local modifications and you'll never be
> notified.
> 
> Which leads to a different point: does this lessen the value of falling
> back to a 3-way merge during a rebase?

The current non-conflicting merges are invaluable for my workflow, which
involves lots and lots of rebasing and cherry-picking.

>> You also need to draw a border line: a single unchanged line between the
>> changes? Or better also conflict at 2 lines? Or 3?
> 
> I naturally assumed the default number of context lines: 3. If I recall
> correctly, this isn't typically configurable.

Nawww... Guess how many, many more conflicts this would report?

Practically all merges that I do are during rebase and cherry-pick. During
this work I often have changes that are separated by only a single line.
The potential merge conflicts that fall in the above category I know in
advance because I've made the changes just two minutes ago, and I can fix
them even without being reminded by a merge conflict.

IOW: I don't need conflict markers in this case - I need them not to
conflict at all.

-- Hannes

  reply	other threads:[~2008-02-13  8:47 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-02-12 22:16 Merge-Recursive Improvements Voltage Spike
2008-02-12 23:03 ` Stefan Monnier
2008-02-12 23:11 ` Junio C Hamano
2008-02-12 23:48 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-02-13  0:05   ` Johannes Schindelin
2008-02-13  1:10     ` [PATCH] xdl_merge(): introduce XDL_MERGE_ZEALOUS_ALNUM Johannes Schindelin
2008-02-13  1:34       ` Junio C Hamano
2008-02-13 11:16         ` Johannes Schindelin
2008-02-15 17:32           ` Junio C Hamano
2008-02-15 18:17             ` Linus Torvalds
2008-02-15 18:23               ` Johannes Schindelin
2008-02-17 19:06               ` Johannes Schindelin
2008-02-17 19:07                 ` [PATCH 1/2] xdl_merge(): make XDL_MERGE_ZEALOUS output simpler Johannes Schindelin
2008-02-17 19:07                   ` [PATCH(RFC) 2/2] xdl_merge(): introduce XDL_MERGE_ZEALOUS_ALNUM Johannes Schindelin
2008-02-18  8:35                   ` [PATCH 1/2] xdl_merge(): make XDL_MERGE_ZEALOUS output simpler Junio C Hamano
2008-02-18 11:33                     ` Johannes Schindelin
2008-02-13  2:06       ` [PATCH] xdl_merge(): introduce XDL_MERGE_ZEALOUS_ALNUM Linus Torvalds
2008-02-13 11:22         ` Johannes Schindelin
2008-02-13  7:39 ` Merge-Recursive Improvements Johannes Sixt
2008-02-13  8:17   ` Steffen Prohaska
2008-02-13  8:21   ` Voltage Spike
2008-02-13  8:46     ` Johannes Sixt [this message]
2008-02-15 19:21   ` Junio C Hamano

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=47B2AE6B.2030700@viscovery.net \
    --to=j.sixt@viscovery.net \
    --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=voltspike@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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).