From: Igor Djordjevic <igor.d.djordjevic@gmail.com>
To: Konstantin Kharlamov <hi-angel@yandex.ru>,
Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org>,
phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Do not raise conflict when a code in a patch was already added
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2018 14:10:17 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <32354ab0-1d17-0be3-679a-75f6287a6bab@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e5f65c19-0f49-d48e-c600-7dfcd95f3218@yandex.ru>
Hi Konstantin,
On 21/08/2018 11:37, Konstantin Kharlamov wrote:
>
> > There's another possibility (and I think it is what happens
> > actually in Konstantin's case): When one side added lines 1 2 and the
> > other side added 1 2 3, then the actual conflict is
> > << 1 2 == 1 2 3 >>, but our merge code is able to move the identical
> > part out of the conflicted section: 1 2 << == 3 >>. But this is just
> > a courtesy for the user; the real conflict is the original one.
> > Without this optimization, the work to resolve the conflict would be
> > slightly more arduous.
>
> Yeah, thanks, that's what happens. And I'm wondering, is it really
> needed to raise a conflict there? Would it be worth to just apply the
> line "3", possibly with a warning or an interactive question to user
> (apply/raise) that identical parts were ignored?
I see how this might make sense in the given example of "A added 1
and 2, B added 1 and 2 and 3", but I'm afraid that might be a too
narrow view.
What we actually don't know is if A deliberately chose not to include
3, or even worse, if A started from having "1 and 2 and 3" in there,
and then decided to remove 3.
In both these situation just applying 3 would be wrong, and raising a
conflict seems as the most (and only?) sensible solution.
Applying _and_ asking for confirmation might be interesting, but I'm
afraid it would favor specific use case only, being an annoyance in
all the others (where it should really be a conflict, and you now
have additional prompt to deal with).
That said, it would indeed be nice to have a way to communicate to
`git rebase` that we are just splitting later commit into smaller
parts preceding it, so situations like this could be resolved
automatically and without conflicts, as you'd expected - but only
within that narrow, user-provided/communicated context, not in
general case.
Regards, Buga
prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-08-21 12:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-08-20 10:22 Do not raise conflict when a code in a patch was already added Konstantin Kharlamov
2018-08-20 17:40 ` Phillip Wood
2018-08-20 19:22 ` Johannes Sixt
2018-08-21 9:37 ` Konstantin Kharlamov
2018-08-21 12:10 ` Igor Djordjevic [this message]
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=32354ab0-1d17-0be3-679a-75f6287a6bab@gmail.com \
--to=igor.d.djordjevic@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=hi-angel@yandex.ru \
--cc=j6t@kdbg.org \
--cc=phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk \
/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).