git merge

git merge

[Fabien Dubail]

Hi,

I've conflicts when I merge branches. I can resolve some conflicts but 
not all. The remaining conflicts will be solved by someone else?
To do that I would like to merge only some files and resolve 'my' 
conflicts. (something like: 'git checkout branch files' but with merge)
Than remaining files will be merged by someone else and remaining 
conflicts will be resolved .
Is-it possible to do that with git and how? Or is there an other way?

Thanks

Fabien

Re: git merge

[Neal Kreitzinger]

On 3/20/2012 4:47 AM, Fabien Dubail wrote:
>
> I've conflicts when I merge branches. I can resolve some conflicts but
> not all. The remaining conflicts will be solved by someone else?
> To do that I would like to merge only some files and resolve 'my'
> conflicts. (something like: 'git checkout branch files' but with merge)
> Than remaining files will be merged by someone else and remaining
> conflicts will be resolved .
> Is-it possible to do that with git and how? Or is there an other way?
>
One way you can do it is to create a branch containing your resolutions. 
  Then the other person pulls your branch.  They would redo the merge on 
their own branch and checkout your resolutions to apply your work, and 
resolve the remainder himself.  This could go on for mutltiple people. 
You can edit the merge commit message to document who resolved which 
conflicts.

Maybe someone has a better way.  We did a "distributed merge" this way. 
  I pulled everyone else's branches containing their resolutions and 
then redid the merge and checkout out their resolutions from their 
branches and resolved my portion assigned to me personally.  Actually, I 
think I did mine in a separate branch and then when all were done I 
redid the merge and checked out out everyone's portions from their 
respective branches (including mine) to accomplish the distributed merge 
(merge conflict resolution).  (In our case, we were actually doing 
git-rebase "merge", but I think it would work for git-merge also.)

Maybe someone else has a better way.

v/r,
neal

Re: git merge

[Neal Kreitzinger]

On 3/20/2012 4:47 AM, Fabien Dubail wrote:
>
> I've conflicts when I merge branches. I can resolve some conflicts but
> not all. The remaining conflicts will be solved by someone else?
> To do that I would like to merge only some files and resolve 'my'
> conflicts. (something like: 'git checkout branch files' but with merge)
> Than remaining files will be merged by someone else and remaining
> conflicts will be resolved .
> Is-it possible to do that with git and how? Or is there an other way?
>
One way you can do it is to create a branch containing your resolutions. 
  Then the other person pulls your branch.  They would redo the merge on 
their own branch and checkout your resolutions to apply your work, and 
resolve the remainder himself.  This could go on for mutltiple people. 
You can edit the merge commit message to document who resolved which 
conflicts.

Maybe someone has a better way.  We did a "distributed merge" this way. 
  I pulled everyone else's branches containing their resolutions and 
then redid the merge and checkout out their resolutions from their 
branches and resolved my portion assigned to me personally.  Actually, I 
think I did mine in a separate branch and then when all were done I 
redid the merge and checked out out everyone's portions from their 
respective branches (including mine) to accomplish the distributed merge 
(merge conflict resolution).  (In our case, we were actually doing 
git-rebase "merge", but I think it would work for git-merge also.)

Maybe someone else has a better way.

v/r,
neal

Merge with git-pasky II.

[Petr Baudis]

  Hello Linus,

  I think my tree should be ready for merging with you. It is the final
tree and I've already switched my main branch for it, so it's what
people doing git pull are getting for some time already.

  Its main contents are all of my shell scripts. Apart of that, some
tiny fixes scattered all around can be found there, as well as some
patches which went through the mailing list. My last merge with you
concerned your commit 39021759c903a943a33a28cfbd5070d36d851581.

  It's again

	rsync://pasky.or.cz/git/

this time my HEAD is fba83970090ef54c6eb86dcc2c2d5087af5ac637.

  Note that my rsync tree still contains even my old branch; I thought
I'd leave it around in the public objects database for some time, shall
anyone want to have a look at the history of some of the scripts. But if
you want it gone, tell me and I will prune it (and perhaps offer it in
/git-old/ or whatever). I'm using the following:

	fsck-cache --unreachable $(commit-id) | grep unreachable \
		| cut -d ' ' -f 2 | sed 's/^\(..\)/.git\/objects\/\1\//' \
		| xargs rm

  Thanks,

-- 
				Petr "Pasky" Baudis
Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/
C++: an octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog. -- Steve Taylor

git merge

[Petr Baudis]

  Hi,

  note that in my git tree there is a git merge implementation which
does out-of-tree merges now. It is still very trivial, and basically
just does something along the lines of (symbolically written)

	checkout-cache $(diff-tree)
	git diff $base $mergedbranch | git apply
	.. fix rejects etc ..
	git commit

  It seems to work, but it is only very lightly tested - it is likely
there are various tiny mistakes and typos in various unusual code paths
and other weird corners of the scripts. Testing is encouraged, and
especially patches fixing bugs you come over.

  It is designed in a way to make it possible to just replace the
checkout-cache and git diff | git apply steps with the merge-tree.pl
tool when it is finished.

  Thanks,

-- 
				Petr "Pasky" Baudis
Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/
C++: an octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog. -- Steve Taylor