From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] rebase: Allow merge strategies to be used when rebasing Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 14:55:28 -0700 Message-ID: <7vbqso95f3.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <1150599735483-git-send-email-normalperson@yhbt.net> <7vd5d63k7f.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20060619213951.GA6987@hand.yhbt.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Jun 19 23:56:01 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FsRiY-0004j5-1Z for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Mon, 19 Jun 2006 23:55:36 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964923AbWFSVza (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Jun 2006 17:55:30 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964927AbWFSVza (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Jun 2006 17:55:30 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao04.cox.net ([68.230.241.35]:31464 "EHLO fed1rmmtao04.cox.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964923AbWFSVz3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Jun 2006 17:55:29 -0400 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.4.9.127]) by fed1rmmtao04.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with ESMTP id <20060619215529.LIWP15767.fed1rmmtao04.cox.net@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>; Mon, 19 Jun 2006 17:55:29 -0400 To: Eric Wong In-Reply-To: <20060619213951.GA6987@hand.yhbt.net> (Eric Wong's message of "Mon, 19 Jun 2006 14:39:51 -0700") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Eric Wong writes: > Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> - You kept the original "format-patch piped to am" workflow >> optionally working. > > I left it as the default, too. I figured that it's best not > to change the default (and most likely faster) behavior of > something people rely on. I should have said: "You kept ... working, which is good". >> I think the three-way merge you would want here is not between B >> and G using E as the pivot, but between B and G using A as the >> pivot. That's how cherry-pick and revert works. I would >> leverage the interface that is one level lower for this -- the >> strategy modules themselves. >> >> git-merge-$strategy $cmt^ -- HEAD $cmt > > Changing the 'git-merge $strategy_args "rebase-merge: $cmt" HEAD "$cmt"' > line in call_merge() to this seems to have broken more tests. Oh, that is to be expected if you changed git-merge -s recursive with git-merge-recursive without other changes. The former makes a commit (which your original patch later used to create a separate commit chain and discarded); the latter does not make a commit but expects the caller to create a commit out of the resulting index file. > I'm not an expert at merging strategies by any measure, I've just > trusted merge-recursive to Do The Right Thing(TM) more often than not, > and use rerere to avoid repeating work. I was originally hoping that rebasing would just be a matter of listing sequence of commits to be ported onto a new base and running "git-cherry-pick" on each of them in sequence. Now cherry-pick does not use merge machinery (hence does not use git-merge-recursive), but if we change that then updating rebase would be pretty much straightforward. It just needs a UI layer to guide the user through recovery process when the merge does not resolve cleanly in the middle, no?