* [BUG] merge-recursive triggered "BUG"
@ 2011-03-17 0:39 Junio C Hamano
2011-03-17 21:45 ` Junio C Hamano
2011-05-20 1:14 ` [BUG] merge-recursive triggered "BUG" Jay Soffian
0 siblings, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2011-03-17 0:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Elijah Newren; +Cc: git
As a part of my today's merge, I used 'next' that contains b2c8c0a
(merge-recursive: When we detect we can skip an update, actually skip it,
2011-02-28) to merge 'maint' into 'master' to propagate older releases up.
It triggered a "BUG" per merged path, and I bisected this breakage down to
the said commit. Luckily 'master' is not contaminated with the breakage,
so I used it to finish today's work.
When I push out the result from today, you can reproduce it with
git checkout 0631623 ;# master to acquire changes from maint
git merge [-s recursive] fbcda3c
I suspect that the new codepath introduced by b2c8c0a needs to pay
attention to the merge depth (for example, does it make any sense at all
to run lstat() when you are doing recursive common parent synthesis?), but
I didn't dig into it.
The command fails with this output:
error: addinfo_cache failed for path 'builtin/add.c'
error: addinfo_cache failed for path 'builtin/apply.c'
error: addinfo_cache failed for path 'builtin/branch.c'
error: addinfo_cache failed for path 'builtin/checkout.c'
error: addinfo_cache failed for path 'builtin/commit.c'
error: addinfo_cache failed for path 'builtin/config.c'
error: addinfo_cache failed for path 'builtin/diff-files.c'
error: addinfo_cache failed for path 'builtin/diff.c'
error: addinfo_cache failed for path 'builtin/fast-export.c'
error: addinfo_cache failed for path 'builtin/grep.c'
error: addinfo_cache failed for path 'builtin/hash-object.c'
error: addinfo_cache failed for path 'builtin/init-db.c'
error: addinfo_cache failed for path 'builtin/log.c'
error: addinfo_cache failed for path 'builtin/merge.c'
error: addinfo_cache failed for path 'builtin/push.c'
error: addinfo_cache failed for path 'builtin/rerere.c'
error: addinfo_cache failed for path 'builtin/update-index.c'
error: addinfo_cache failed for path 't/t7810-grep.sh'
BUG: There are unmerged index entries:
BUG: 1 builtin/add.cBUG: 2 builtin/add.cBUG: 3 builtin/add.cBUG: 1 builtin/apply.cBUG: 2 builtin/apply.cBUG: 3 builtin/apply.cBUG: 1 builtin/branch.cBUG: 2 builtin/branch.cBUG: 3 builtin/branch.cBUG: 1 builtin/checkout.cBUG: 2 builtin/checkout.cBUG: 3 builtin/checkout.cBUG: 1 builtin/commit.cBUG: 2 builtin/commit.cBUG: 3 builtin/commit.cBUG: 1 builtin/config.cBUG: 2 builtin/config.cBUG: 3 builtin/config.cBUG: 1 builtin/diff-files.cBUG: 2 builtin/diff-files.cBUG: 3 builtin/diff-files.cBUG: 1 builtin/diff.cBUG: 2 builtin/diff.cBUG: 3 builtin/diff.cBUG: 1 builtin/fast-export.cBUG: 2 builtin/fast-export.cBUG: 3 builtin/fast-export.cBUG: 1 builtin/grep.cBUG: 2 builtin/grep.cBUG: 3 builtin/grep.cBUG: 1 builtin/hash-object.cBUG: 2 builtin/hash-object.cBUG: 3 builtin/hash-object.cBUG: 1 builtin/in
it-db.cBUG: 2 builtin/init-db.cBUG: 3 builtin/init-db.cBUG: 1 builtin/log.cBUG: 2 builtin/log.cBUG: 3 builtin/log.cBUG: 1 builtin/merge.cBUG: 2 builtin/merge.cBUG: 3 builtin/merge.cBUG: 1 builtin/push.cBUG: 2 builtin/push.cBUG: 3 builtin/push.cBUG: 1 builtin/rerere.cBUG: 2 builtin/rerere.cBUG: 3 builtin/rerere.cBUG: 1 builtin/update-index.cBUG: 2 builtin/update-index.cBUG: 3 builtin/update-index.cBUG: 1 t/t7810-grep.shBUG: 2 t/t7810-grep.shBUG: 3 t/t7810-grep.shfatal: Bug in merge-recursive.c
Thanks.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* Re: [BUG] merge-recursive triggered "BUG" 2011-03-17 0:39 [BUG] merge-recursive triggered "BUG" Junio C Hamano @ 2011-03-17 21:45 ` Junio C Hamano 2011-03-18 6:07 ` [PATCH] merge-recursive: tweak magic band-aid Junio C Hamano 2011-05-20 1:14 ` [BUG] merge-recursive triggered "BUG" Jay Soffian 1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Junio C Hamano @ 2011-03-17 21:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Elijah Newren; +Cc: git To illustrate the issue a bit better, with this patch applied on top of the en/merge-recursive topic, we get the same errors: Merging: 31734dd Renamed and modified virtual merge-branch-1 found 1 common ancestor(s): 13277ae Common commmit Skipped rename (merged same as existing) error: addinfo_cache failed for path 'rename' rename: unmerged (f00c965d8307308469e537302baa73048488f162) rename: unmerged (3bb459b831ea471b9cd1cbb7c6d54a74251a711b) rename: unmerged (f00c965d8307308469e537302baa73048488f162) fatal: git write-tree failed to write a tree In the test case, the merge machinery should notice that the result of the merge structurally place the merge result in the path "rename", and the content of the resulting blob matches what our side already have, so we should end up with a clean merge in the index (the index has the same blob as the HEAD at path "rename"), keeping the updated contents in the working tree. t/t6022-merge-rename.sh | 1 + 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) diff --git a/t/t6022-merge-rename.sh b/t/t6022-merge-rename.sh index 7d955c1..94b9c00 100755 --- a/t/t6022-merge-rename.sh +++ b/t/t6022-merge-rename.sh @@ -730,6 +730,7 @@ test_expect_success 'setup avoid unnecessary update, normal rename' ' test_expect_success 'avoid unnecessary update, normal rename' ' git checkout -q avoid-unnecessary-update-1^0 && + echo modified >>rename && test-chmtime =1000000000 rename && test-chmtime -v +0 rename >expect && git merge merge-branch-1 && ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] merge-recursive: tweak magic band-aid 2011-03-17 21:45 ` Junio C Hamano @ 2011-03-18 6:07 ` Junio C Hamano 2011-03-21 18:24 ` Elijah Newren 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Junio C Hamano @ 2011-03-18 6:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: git; +Cc: Elijah Newren Running checks against working tree (e.g. lstat()) and causing changes to working tree (e.g. unlink()) while building a virtual ancestor merge does not make any sense. Avoid doing so. This is not a real fix; it is another magic band-aid on top of another band-aid we placed earlier. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> --- * This does not fix the "even though we have local change in the working tree, we do have a clean index entry for that path that happens to be the one we renamed, and they didn't" case this message responds to, it does seem to fix the real-life breakage I saw when I merged 'maint' to 'master' yesterday, admittedly in a clean working tree. merge-recursive is riddled with places that touch/inspect working tree when it shouldn't, and it is beyond salvage without a major refactoring in its current shape, so this magic band-aid should do for now. Generally speaking, the only valid kinds of accesses a merge strategy is allowed are: (1) to compare the working tree file with our original index entry to see if it has local changes. This should be done only for paths that the index entry of the merge result is different from the current one and the working tree file needs updating. We need this check because the merge must not lose such local changes when we checkout the merge result. This check could use lstat(2) as part of ce_match_stat() from read-cache.c; or (2) to make sure there is no file that was not tracked in our original index in the working tree at the path that the result of the merge needs to create a file or a directory. We need this check because the merge must not lose such an untracked file when we checkout the merge result. This check would use lstat(2), as part of checkout_entry() from entry.c; or (3) when the result of the merge needs to create a file at a path and the working tree has a directory at the path, to make sure that the contents of the directory does not have any locally modified files relative to our original index, or untracked-and-unignored files. We need this check because the merge must be able to "rm -r" such a directory safely in order to checkout the merge result. As a special case, a file missing from the working tree is considered unmodified for the purpose of (1). IOW, removal of a path from the working tree without touching the index is considered a local change that we are willing to lose during a merge. This is to support a workflow (or a Porcelain script) that merges commits in a fresh temporary directory, e.g. this sequence cd_to_toplevel mkdir tmp_merge cd tmp_merge export GIT_DIR=../.git git read-tree pu ;# the branch may not be related to the current one git merge-resolve $(git merge-base pu topic) -- pu topic would start from an empty temporary merge directory, check out only the paths that were involved in the merge, potentially leaving conflict markers in them, and allows the user to resolve them, without touching the real working tree or the current branch. The resulting index can be written to a tree object to record the result of the merge. merge-recursive.c | 9 ++++++++- 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/merge-recursive.c b/merge-recursive.c index 847bc84..59482ff 100644 --- a/merge-recursive.c +++ b/merge-recursive.c @@ -370,6 +370,13 @@ static void make_room_for_directories_of_df_conflicts(struct merge_options *o, struct stage_data *last_e; int i; + /* + * Do not do any of this crazyness during the recursive; we don't + * even write anything to the working tree! + */ + if (o->call_depth) + return; + for (i = 0; i < entries->nr; i++) { const char *path = entries->items[i].string; int len = strlen(path); @@ -1274,7 +1281,7 @@ static int merge_content(struct merge_options *o, if (mfi.clean && !df_conflict_remains && sha_eq(mfi.sha, a_sha) && mfi.mode == a.mode && - lstat(path, &st) == 0) { + !o->call_depth && !lstat(path, &st)) { output(o, 3, "Skipped %s (merged same as existing)", path); add_cacheinfo(mfi.mode, mfi.sha, path, 0 /*stage*/, 1 /*refresh*/, 0 /*options*/); -- 1.7.4.1.494.g5ddab ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] merge-recursive: tweak magic band-aid 2011-03-18 6:07 ` [PATCH] merge-recursive: tweak magic band-aid Junio C Hamano @ 2011-03-21 18:24 ` Elijah Newren 0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Elijah Newren @ 2011-03-21 18:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: git Hi, On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote: > Running checks against working tree (e.g. lstat()) and causing > changes to working tree (e.g. unlink()) while building a virtual > ancestor merge does not make any sense. Avoid doing so. > > This is not a real fix; it is another magic band-aid on top of > another band-aid we placed earlier. > > Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> Sorry for not responding sooner; thanks for fixing this up, though. Also, I have to apologize for having left a bunch of changes on my harddrive for several months; one of those changes includes the first half of your patch (which I should have remembered and not made the problem worse with my more recent patch submission.) I just never got around to cleaning up those changes and getting them submitted. Maybe I should just send what I do have for now, and then send the cleaned up version when I get a good chunk of time in another month or two. > merge-recursive is riddled with places that touch/inspect working tree > when it shouldn't, and it is beyond salvage without a major refactoring > in its current shape, so this magic band-aid should do for now. Yeah, I agree this needs to be fixed up. If no one else takes a look, I'll try to when I get back to my other changes. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [BUG] merge-recursive triggered "BUG" 2011-03-17 0:39 [BUG] merge-recursive triggered "BUG" Junio C Hamano 2011-03-17 21:45 ` Junio C Hamano @ 2011-05-20 1:14 ` Jay Soffian 2011-05-20 1:17 ` Jay Soffian 2011-05-20 3:21 ` Junio C Hamano 1 sibling, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Jay Soffian @ 2011-05-20 1:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: Elijah Newren, git On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 8:39 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote: > As a part of my today's merge, I used 'next' that contains b2c8c0a > (merge-recursive: When we detect we can skip an update, actually skip it, > 2011-02-28) to merge 'maint' into 'master' to propagate older releases up. > > It triggered a "BUG" per merged path, and I bisected this breakage down to > the said commit. Luckily 'master' is not contaminated with the breakage, > so I used it to finish today's work. I just ran into this. It's not in a repo I can share however. But, why did b2c8c0a make it into master with this known issue? j. > When I push out the result from today, you can reproduce it with > > git checkout 0631623 ;# master to acquire changes from maint > git merge [-s recursive] fbcda3c > > I suspect that the new codepath introduced by b2c8c0a needs to pay > attention to the merge depth (for example, does it make any sense at all > to run lstat() when you are doing recursive common parent synthesis?), but > I didn't dig into it. > > The command fails with this output: > > error: addinfo_cache failed for path 'builtin/add.c' > error: addinfo_cache failed for path 'builtin/apply.c' > error: addinfo_cache failed for path 'builtin/branch.c' > error: addinfo_cache failed for path 'builtin/checkout.c' > error: addinfo_cache failed for path 'builtin/commit.c' > error: addinfo_cache failed for path 'builtin/config.c' > error: addinfo_cache failed for path 'builtin/diff-files.c' > error: addinfo_cache failed for path 'builtin/diff.c' > error: addinfo_cache failed for path 'builtin/fast-export.c' > error: addinfo_cache failed for path 'builtin/grep.c' > error: addinfo_cache failed for path 'builtin/hash-object.c' > error: addinfo_cache failed for path 'builtin/init-db.c' > error: addinfo_cache failed for path 'builtin/log.c' > error: addinfo_cache failed for path 'builtin/merge.c' > error: addinfo_cache failed for path 'builtin/push.c' > error: addinfo_cache failed for path 'builtin/rerere.c' > error: addinfo_cache failed for path 'builtin/update-index.c' > error: addinfo_cache failed for path 't/t7810-grep.sh' > BUG: There are unmerged index entries: > BUG: 1 builtin/add.cBUG: 2 builtin/add.cBUG: 3 builtin/add.cBUG: 1 builtin/apply.cBUG: 2 builtin/apply.cBUG: 3 builtin/apply.cBUG: 1 builtin/branch.cBUG: 2 builtin/branch.cBUG: 3 builtin/branch.cBUG: 1 builtin/checkout.cBUG: 2 builtin/checkout.cBUG: 3 builtin/checkout.cBUG: 1 builtin/commit.cBUG: 2 builtin/commit.cBUG: 3 builtin/commit.cBUG: 1 builtin/config.cBUG: 2 builtin/config.cBUG: 3 builtin/config.cBUG: 1 builtin/diff-files.cBUG: 2 builtin/diff-files.cBUG: 3 builtin/diff-files.cBUG: 1 builtin/diff.cBUG: 2 builtin/diff.cBUG: 3 builtin/diff.cBUG: 1 builtin/fast-export.cBUG: 2 builtin/fast-export.cBUG: 3 builtin/fast-export.cBUG: 1 builtin/grep.cBUG: 2 builtin/grep.cBUG: 3 builtin/grep.cBUG: 1 builtin/hash-object.cBUG: 2 builtin/hash-object.cBUG: 3 builtin/hash-object.cBUG: 1 builtin/init-db.cBUG: 2 builtin/init-db.cBUG: 3 builtin/init-db.cBUG: 1 builtin/log.cBUG: 2 builtin/log.cBUG: 3 builtin/log.cBUG: 1 builtin/merge.cBUG: 2 builtin/merge.cBUG: 3 builtin/merge.cBUG: 1 builtin/push.cBUG: 2 builtin/push.cBUG: 3 builtin/push.cBUG: 1 builtin/rerere.cBUG: 2 builtin/rerere.cBUG: 3 builtin/rerere.cBUG: 1 builtin/update-index.cBUG: 2 builtin/update-index.cBUG: 3 builtin/update-index.cBUG: 1 t/t7810-grep.shBUG: 2 t/t7810-grep.shBUG: 3 t/t7810-grep.shfatal: Bug in merge-recursive.c > > > Thanks. > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [BUG] merge-recursive triggered "BUG" 2011-05-20 1:14 ` [BUG] merge-recursive triggered "BUG" Jay Soffian @ 2011-05-20 1:17 ` Jay Soffian 2011-05-20 3:21 ` Junio C Hamano 1 sibling, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Jay Soffian @ 2011-05-20 1:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: Elijah Newren, git On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 9:14 PM, Jay Soffian <jaysoffian@gmail.com> wrote: > I just ran into this. It's not in a repo I can share however. But, why > did b2c8c0a make it into master with this known issue? Sorry, let me clarify. I got the: error: addinfo_cache failed for path '...' line, but not the BUG. I can try to bisect git if this is a different issue. j. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [BUG] merge-recursive triggered "BUG" 2011-05-20 1:14 ` [BUG] merge-recursive triggered "BUG" Jay Soffian 2011-05-20 1:17 ` Jay Soffian @ 2011-05-20 3:21 ` Junio C Hamano 2011-05-20 12:29 ` Jay Soffian 1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Junio C Hamano @ 2011-05-20 3:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jay Soffian; +Cc: Ciaran, Elijah Newren, git Jay Soffian <jaysoffian@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 8:39 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote: >> As a part of my today's merge, I used 'next' that contains b2c8c0a >> (merge-recursive: When we detect we can skip an update, actually skip it, >> 2011-02-28) to merge 'maint' into 'master' to propagate older releases up. >> >> It triggered a "BUG" per merged path, and I bisected this breakage down to >> the said commit. Luckily 'master' is not contaminated with the breakage, >> so I used it to finish today's work. > > I just ran into this. It's not in a repo I can share however. But, why > did b2c8c0a make it into master with this known issue? Because it was patched by another band-aid, and apparently it was not enough? You are the second person to report the same regression, so let's revert the merge of the entire topic, ac9666f (Merge branch 'en/merge-recursive', 2011-04-28) from master for now. Thanks. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [BUG] merge-recursive triggered "BUG" 2011-05-20 3:21 ` Junio C Hamano @ 2011-05-20 12:29 ` Jay Soffian 2011-05-20 13:00 ` Jay Soffian 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Jay Soffian @ 2011-05-20 12:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: Ciaran, Elijah Newren, git On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 11:21 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote: >> I just ran into this. It's not in a repo I can share however. But, why >> did b2c8c0a make it into master with this known issue? > > Because it was patched by another band-aid, and apparently it was not > enough? Okay, I didn't see the band-aid, but I didn't look very hard. > You are the second person to report the same regression, so let's revert > the merge of the entire topic, ac9666f (Merge branch 'en/merge-recursive', > 2011-04-28) from master for now. I went to confirm the cause, did a merge with v1.7.4-rc0~102 (106e3afa6f) and did not see the "addinfo_cache failed" message. But now here's the strange part, I then switched back to master (11bc3e92bf), tried the merge again, and I'm still not seeing the "addinfo_cache failed" message. So now I'm trying to figure out what v1.7.4-rc0~102 altered about the state of my repo that I'm no longer seeing the message. Hmfph. j. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [BUG] merge-recursive triggered "BUG" 2011-05-20 12:29 ` Jay Soffian @ 2011-05-20 13:00 ` Jay Soffian 0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Jay Soffian @ 2011-05-20 13:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: Ciaran, Elijah Newren, git On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Jay Soffian <jaysoffian@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 11:21 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote: >>> I just ran into this. It's not in a repo I can share however. But, why >>> did b2c8c0a make it into master with this known issue? >> >> Because it was patched by another band-aid, and apparently it was not >> enough? > > Okay, I didn't see the band-aid, but I didn't look very hard. > >> You are the second person to report the same regression, so let's revert >> the merge of the entire topic, ac9666f (Merge branch 'en/merge-recursive', >> 2011-04-28) from master for now. > > I went to confirm the cause, did a merge with v1.7.4-rc0~102 > (106e3afa6f) and did not see the "addinfo_cache failed" message. But > now here's the strange part, I then switched back to master > (11bc3e92bf), tried the merge again, and I'm still not seeing the > "addinfo_cache failed" message. > > So now I'm trying to figure out what v1.7.4-rc0~102 altered about the > state of my repo that I'm no longer seeing the message. Sorry, it's definitely that topic. I didn't realize you'd already reverted it from master. The bug occurs between when the topic was merged and when it was reverted. Thanks, j. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-05-20 13:00 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2011-03-17 0:39 [BUG] merge-recursive triggered "BUG" Junio C Hamano 2011-03-17 21:45 ` Junio C Hamano 2011-03-18 6:07 ` [PATCH] merge-recursive: tweak magic band-aid Junio C Hamano 2011-03-21 18:24 ` Elijah Newren 2011-05-20 1:14 ` [BUG] merge-recursive triggered "BUG" Jay Soffian 2011-05-20 1:17 ` Jay Soffian 2011-05-20 3:21 ` Junio C Hamano 2011-05-20 12:29 ` Jay Soffian 2011-05-20 13:00 ` Jay Soffian
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).