From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Sixt Subject: Re: Merge-Recursive Improvements Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:46:35 +0100 Message-ID: <47B2AE6B.2030700@viscovery.net> References: <47B29EBF.7060607@viscovery.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Voltage Spike X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Feb 13 09:47:22 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JPDGu-0004g2-2W for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:47:16 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754102AbYBMIql (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Feb 2008 03:46:41 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753764AbYBMIql (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Feb 2008 03:46:41 -0500 Received: from lilzmailso01.liwest.at ([212.33.55.23]:15995 "EHLO lilzmailso01.liwest.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752096AbYBMIqk (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Feb 2008 03:46:40 -0500 Received: from cm56-163-160.liwest.at ([86.56.163.160] helo=linz.eudaptics.com) by lilzmailso01.liwest.at with esmtpa (Exim 4.66) (envelope-from ) id 1JPDFr-0007Wg-95; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:46:12 +0100 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (J6T.linz.viscovery [192.168.1.42]) by linz.eudaptics.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91E0769F; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:46:35 +0100 (CET) User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.5 X-Spam-Score: 1.7 (+) X-Spam-Report: ALL_TRUSTED=-1.8, BAYES_99=3.5 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: 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