From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: git-rerere observations and feature suggestions
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:46:08 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7vej6xb4lr.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080616110113.GA22945@elte.hu> (Ingo Molnar's message of "Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:01:13 +0200")
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> writes:
> We are running a rather complex Git tree with heavy use of git-rerere
> (the -tip kernel tree, with more than 80 topic branches). git-rerere is
> really nice in that it caches conflict resolutions, but there are a few
> areas where it would be nice to have improvements:
>
> - Fixing resolutions: currently, when i do an incorrect conflict
> resolution, and fix it on the next run, git-rerere does not pick up
> the new resolution but uses the old (buggy) one on the next run. To
> fix it up i have to find the right entries in .git/rr-cache/* and
> manually erase them. Would be nice to have "git-rerere gc <pathspec>"
> to flush out a single bad resolution.
I agree this is a real issue (I sometimes know that the resolution is iffy
and say "rerere clear" to choose not to record it, but that is working
around the issue with a perfect foresight and is not a solution).
I think (and I think you would agree) "gc" is not the right word but
rather you would want to more actively discard the wrong one.
I agree that it is the right UI to do this to specify paths right after
you found that a bad resolution that was recorded previously was used by
rerere (I think that is what you are suggesting). Upon such a request, we
should undo the bad resolution and bring the working tree copy to the
original conflicted state, and clear the bad rerere entry.
> - File deletion: would be nice if git-rerere picked up git-rm
> resolutions. We hit this every now and then and right now i know
> which ones need an extra git-rm pass.
I originally did not have need for anything other than three-way conflict
resolving to a result. I do not know how safe reapplying a removal to
different context, though.
> - Automation: would be nice to have a git-rerere modus operandi where
> it would auto-commit things if and only if all conflicting files were
> resolved.
I am not sure how safe this is. rerere as originally designed does not
even update the index with merge results so that the application of
earlier resolution can be manually inspected, and this is exactly because
I consider a blind textual reapplication of previous resolution always
iffy, even though I invented the whole mechanism.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-06-16 18:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 45+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-06-16 11:01 git-rerere observations and feature suggestions Ingo Molnar
2008-06-16 11:09 ` Mike Hommey
2008-06-16 15:48 ` Pierre Habouzit
2008-06-16 15:57 ` Pierre Habouzit
2008-06-16 16:18 ` Sverre Rabbelier
2008-06-17 7:37 ` Karl Hasselström
2008-06-16 11:26 ` David Kastrup
2008-06-16 11:27 ` Theodore Tso
2008-06-16 12:38 ` David Kastrup
2008-06-16 19:52 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-06-16 20:25 ` Junio C Hamano
2008-06-16 20:46 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-06-16 21:37 ` Junio C Hamano
2008-06-16 18:46 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2008-06-16 19:09 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-06-16 20:50 ` Junio C Hamano
2008-06-22 9:47 ` [PATCH 1/5] rerere: rerere_created_at() and has_resolution() abstraction Junio C Hamano
2008-06-22 9:47 ` [PATCH 2/5] git-rerere: detect unparsable conflicts Junio C Hamano
2008-06-22 9:47 ` [PATCH 3/5] rerere: remove dubious "tail_optimization" Junio C Hamano
2008-06-22 9:48 ` [PATCH 4/5] t4200: fix rerere test Junio C Hamano
2008-06-22 9:48 ` [PATCH 5/5] rerere.autoupdate Junio C Hamano
2008-06-18 10:57 ` git-rerere observations and feature suggestions Ingo Molnar
2008-06-18 11:29 ` Miklos Vajna
2008-06-18 18:43 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-06-18 19:53 ` Miklos Vajna
2008-06-18 11:36 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-06-18 22:01 ` Jakub Narebski
2008-06-18 22:38 ` Miklos Vajna
2008-06-19 7:23 ` Karl Hasselström
2008-06-19 7:29 ` Miklos Vajna
2008-06-19 7:30 ` Junio C Hamano
2008-06-19 8:21 ` Karl Hasselström
2008-06-19 8:33 ` Miklos Vajna
2008-06-19 9:19 ` Karl Hasselström
2008-06-19 10:06 ` Miklos Vajna
2008-06-19 10:35 ` Karl Hasselström
2008-06-16 19:10 ` Junio C Hamano
2008-06-16 19:44 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-06-23 9:49 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-06-23 14:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-06-23 14:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-06-23 15:12 ` Jeff King
2008-06-23 15:22 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-06-16 20:11 ` Jakub Narebski
2008-06-17 10:24 ` Johannes Schindelin
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=7vej6xb4lr.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
/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).