Re: en/merge-tree (Was: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Feb 2022, #08; Mon, 28))

[Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 8:31 AM Johannes Schindelin
<Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> Hi Elijah,
>
> On Tue, 1 Mar 2022, Elijah Newren wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 7:26 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > * en/merge-tree (2022-02-23) 13 commits
> > >  - git-merge-tree.txt: add a section on potentional usage mistakes
> > >  - merge-tree: add a --allow-unrelated-histories flag
> > >  - merge-tree: allow `ls-files -u` style info to be NUL terminated
> > >  - merge-tree: provide easy access to `ls-files -u` style info
> > >  - merge-tree: provide a list of which files have conflicts
> > >  - merge-ort: provide a merge_get_conflicted_files() helper function
> > >  - merge-tree: support including merge messages in output
> > >  - merge-ort: split out a separate display_update_messages() function
> > >  - merge-tree: implement real merges
> > >  - merge-tree: add option parsing and initial shell for real merge function
> > >  - merge-tree: move logic for existing merge into new function
> > >  - merge-tree: rename merge_trees() to trivial_merge_trees()
> > >  - Merge branch 'en/remerge-diff' into en/merge-trees
> > >
> > >  A new command is introduced that takes two commits and computes a
> > >  tree that would be contained in the resulting merge commit, if the
> > >  histories leading to these two commits were to be merged, and is
> > >  added as a new mode of "git merge-tree" subcommand.
> > >
> > >  Will merge to 'next'.
> > >  source: <pull.1122.v6.git.1645602413.gitgitgadget@gmail.com>
> >
> > As I mentioned on the last "What's cooking", let's not.  Please mark
> > it as expecting a reroll instead.  I'm waiting to hear back from Dscho
> > on whether my latest proposal at [1] would solve his usecase.  That
> > proposal suggests output format and various code changes.
> >
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/CABPp-BGnqXdFBNAyKRXgvCHv+aUZTMg-CgcQf95dKAR-e1zSjQ@mail.gmail.com/
>
> I am _so sorry_! I didn't expect you to wait for me (and even then, I
> cannot take time where there is no time to take, I am unfortunately quite
> short on time these days).
>
> From my side, this patch series is totally ready to be merged to `next`!
>
> In the interest of heeding the matra "the perfect is the enemy of the
> good", let's avoid adding more concerns that this patch series needs to
> address.
>
> Whatever machine-parseable info we want to provide can be made optional,
> and we can iterate on the design by marking that option as experimental.
>
> Thank you so much for your hard work!

Thanks, and while I usually am glad to see folks want to merge stuff
of mine down, this one suggests core changes to the existing output
sections rather than a new output section, and makes me wonder how to
handle the new info without -z[2].  Since this command is meant for
the plumbing-level, I'd like to avoid solidifying it too early -- at
least until we can handle the current usecases.  So even though
everyone else is saying to merge it down, I'd rather not quite yet.

[2] https://lore.kernel.org/git/CABPp-BGW39_5r8Lbt3ymR+F_=hWJcf=2e7O75vFNJ=3CEL5s=g@mail.gmail.com/