Question on empty commit

Question on empty commit

[Luben Tuikov]

Hi,

Scenario:

trunk remote
  |
  \/
trunk local
     \
      `--> tree A
               \
                `--> tree B

         Figure 1.

This is the dependecny since project B depends on project A
introduced in tree A.  And merging is done as follows
(branch per directory; everything but HEAD and index is shared):

cd trunk && git pull trunk
cd ../treeA && git merge "merge trunk" HEAD trunk
cd ../treeB && git merge "merge tree A" HEAD treeA

But this isn't the only way to do it since tree B depends
only on the introduced into tree A project A, and both
project A and project B depend on the trunk, as follows:

trunk remote
  |
  \/
trunk local
  \  \
   \  `--> tree A
    \          \
     `--------> `--> tree B

         Figure 2.

So at point in time t where tree B had been synced with tree A,
and tree A had been synced with trunk, but trunk had _not_ been
synced with remote trunk, a merge was done following Figure 2:

cd trunk && git pull trunk
cd ../treeA && git merge "merge trunk" HEAD trunk
cd ../treeB && git merge "merge trunk" HEAD trunk
git merge "merge tree A" HEAD treeA

Now the last merge introduced an empty commit, since
tree A and tree B had been in sync (only local and
remote trunk had been out of sync).  While it was expected
that no commit would be introduced since they were in sync.

Was the empty commit correct behavior?

Thanks,
   Luben

Re: Question on empty commit

[Junio C Hamano]

Luben Tuikov <ltuikov@yahoo.com> writes:

> Now the last merge introduced an empty commit, since
> tree A and tree B had been in sync (only local and
> remote trunk had been out of sync).  While it was expected
> that no commit would be introduced since they were in sync.
>
> Was the empty commit correct behavior?

I do not quite follow you, but immediately before the "empty
commit" (I presume you mean the last "git merge" that merges
treeA head in treeB), you say "the treeA and treeB had been in
sync".  What do you exactly mean?  The tree object in the head
commits in treeA branch and treeB branch were identical?

If that is the case, the commit being empty is the correct
behaviour, because there is no difference in the set of files
introduced by that commit.  And the commit being made is also
the correct behaviour, because those two branches have different
development history, and the commit is what binds them together.

Re: Question on empty commit

[Luben Tuikov]

--- Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> wrote:

> Luben Tuikov <ltuikov@yahoo.com> writes:
> 
> > Now the last merge introduced an empty commit, since
> > tree A and tree B had been in sync (only local and
> > remote trunk had been out of sync).  While it was expected
> > that no commit would be introduced since they were in sync.
> >
> > Was the empty commit correct behavior?
> 
> I do not quite follow you, but immediately before the "empty
> commit" (I presume you mean the last "git merge" that merges
> treeA head in treeB), you say "the treeA and treeB had been in
> sync".

Meaning that merging Tree A into Tree B would introduce 0 changes
to Tree B.

> What do you exactly mean?  The tree object in the head
> commits in treeA branch and treeB branch were identical?

They cannot be, since Tree B contains Project B, which is not
present in Tree A, but it depends on Project A in Tree A.

> If that is the case, the commit being empty is the correct
> behaviour, because there is no difference in the set of files
> introduced by that commit.  And the commit being made is also
> the correct behaviour, because those two branches have different
> development history, and the commit is what binds them together.

So a new commit object, with 0 files changed was the correct behavior
after all?

I'd expect that there would be no commit object whatsoever since
those trees had been synced before.  I.e. the only thing which changed
was the trunk and that trunk was synced to Tree A and Tree B separately.

Thanks,
    Luben

Re: Question on empty commit

[Luben Tuikov]

--- Luben Tuikov <ltuikov@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> wrote:
> 
> > Luben Tuikov <ltuikov@yahoo.com> writes:
> > 
> > > Now the last merge introduced an empty commit, since
> > > tree A and tree B had been in sync (only local and
> > > remote trunk had been out of sync).  While it was expected
> > > that no commit would be introduced since they were in sync.
> > >
> > > Was the empty commit correct behavior?
> > 
> > I do not quite follow you, but immediately before the "empty
> > commit" (I presume you mean the last "git merge" that merges
> > treeA head in treeB), you say "the treeA and treeB had been in
> > sync".
> 
> Meaning that merging Tree A into Tree B would introduce 0 changes
> to Tree B.
> 
> > What do you exactly mean?  The tree object in the head
> > commits in treeA branch and treeB branch were identical?
> 
> They cannot be, since Tree B contains Project B, which is not
> present in Tree A, but it depends on Project A in Tree A.
> 
> > If that is the case, the commit being empty is the correct
> > behaviour, because there is no difference in the set of files
> > introduced by that commit.  And the commit being made is also
> > the correct behaviour, because those two branches have different
> > development history, and the commit is what binds them together.
> 
> So a new commit object, with 0 files changed was the correct behavior
> after all?
> 
> I'd expect that there would be no commit object whatsoever since
> those trees had been synced before.  I.e. the only thing which changed
> was the trunk and that trunk was synced to Tree A and Tree B separately.
> 
> Thanks,
>     Luben

Ok, so what I'm seeing is that git history records what the _user did_
as opposed to _what happened to the code_.

Is it possible to have an env var to control this "feature".  I.e. if
the result is 0 lines 0 files changed, then do not update the index and/or
the git database.

Thanks Junio,
    Luben

Re: Question on empty commit

[Junio C Hamano]

Luben Tuikov <ltuikov@yahoo.com> writes:

>> I do not quite follow you, but immediately before the "empty
>> commit" (I presume you mean the last "git merge" that merges
>> treeA head in treeB), you say "the treeA and treeB had been in
>> sync".
>
> Meaning that merging Tree A into Tree B would introduce 0 changes
> to Tree B.

You had two separate development tracks treeA and treeB, and the
entire merge result is taken from treeB because it had all the
changes from the common upstream already and there was no
development in treeA on its own:

          treeB ---------o--o--o--*--o--o---*--o..?
                                 /         /     .
                                /         /     .
          common upstream ---- / --o--o--o--o  .
                              /           \   . 
                             /             \ .
          treeA ------o--o--o---------------*
                                    ^
                                    |
                     No commit on this segment.

                o are commits, * are merge commits.

and we are trying to merge the last commit on treeA line into
the tip of treeB.  The last merge commit on the treeB line of
development would introduce zero change from treeB's point of
view, because there is nothing new treeB would get by merging
with treeA.

Before the '?' mergepoint, what is known about treeA and treeB
was that treeB contained everything up to the third from the
left 'o' commit on treeA line.  We now noticed that treeA has
some changes since then (i.e. all the good stuff from the common
upstream), and merge even has noticed that these changes happen
to be already what treeB already had and you did not have to
hand resolve (or you might have had to; I dunno).  Making a
commit for '?' merge records the fact that these two tips are in
sync.  IOW, earlier treeB did not know about the merge commit at
the tip of treeA; now it does.

After this sync, if you try to merge again with treeA, no merge
commit would be made, of course.  Now you are truly up-to-date.

When git talks about a branch being up-to-date wrt another
branch, it is not about "all of the patches that the other line
has have been applied to our tree" (we are not a patchset based
system like darcs).  It is about commit ancestry, IOW, "in the
past we have merged with them, and all the commits that line has
right now are what we have already examined when we made that
merge" is what we mean by us being up-to-date wrt them.

Fast-forward is the other way around but the principle is the
same.  We are fast-forward to them not because we have applied
all the patches they have and we have more.  We are fast-forward
because we have seen all of their commits in the past and
recorded in our commit ancestry chain that fact as a merge, and
in addition we have one or more commits on top of that merge
commit.  That is when we are fast-forward wrt to them.

Re: Question on empty commit

[Junio C Hamano]

Luben Tuikov <ltuikov@yahoo.com> writes:

> Ok, so what I'm seeing is that git history records what the _user did_
> as opposed to _what happened to the code_.
>
> Is it possible to have an env var to control this "feature".  I.e. if
> the result is 0 lines 0 files changed, then do not update the index and/or
> the git database.

Good question.  We could go stronger than that, and say it would
make more sense not to make that commit by default, except when
the merge was done with "ours" strategy (it explicitly asks for
an empty commit to make it stand out that trees were in sync at
that point), or the merge was manually resolved and the result
happens to match what treeB already had.

Why?

          treeB ---------o--o--o--*--o--o---*--o..?
                                 /         /     .
                                /         /     .
          common upstream ---- / --o--o--o--o  .
                              /           \   . 
                             /             \ .
          treeA ------o--o--o---------------*
                                    ^
                                    |
                     No commit on this segment.

                o are commits, * are merge commits.

At point '?' we can choose not to make a merge.  You could,
after seeing such an empty merge, emulate this behaviour by
doing "git reset --hard HEAD^" yourself.  Then some time later,
when treeA truly has something new to offer treeB, the next
merge attempt will create a true merge commit at '!':

          treeB ---------o--o--o--*--o--o---*--o--?--o--o--!
                                 /         /     .        /
                                /         /     .        /
          common upstream ---- / --o--o--o--o  .        /
                              /           \   .        /
                             /             \ .        / 
          treeA ------o--o--o---------------*--o--o--o

When we have the last two 'o' commits on treeB development
track, creating '?' merge _might_ have some value, because we
can clearly see that those two new 'o' commits on treeB are
compatible with the '*' merge commit on treeA track.  Without
the merge at '?' we would not be able to tell that, so in that
sense it is a small plus to have '?' merge commit, and it may
even help bisection bug hunting.  But in practice it may not
matter and just clutter your history.

Especially if we did not have the last two 'o' commits on treeB
line, making an empty merge commit at '?' would mostly be
pointless.


          treeB ---------o--o--o--*--o--o---*--o--?--------!
                                 /         /     .        /
                                /         /     .        /
          common upstream ---- / --o--o--o--o  .        /
                              /           \   .        /
                             /             \ .        / 
          treeA ------o--o--o---------------*--o--o--o

But unfortunately we cannot tell if we are going to build on top
of '?' before we merge with treeA again next time at '!', when
we are at point '?', so we could have an option or environment
variable to control this "feature", but unless you can predict
the future at point '?', deciding whether to use that option
would be rather difficult.