git/list[1] front-page[2] threads[3] people[4] search[5] about
 

[PATCHv5 2/2] pull --rebase: Avoid spurious conflicts and reapplying unnecessary patches

From
Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Date
Aug 13, 2010, 01:50 UTC
Message-ID
<1281664250-2703-3-git-send-email-newren@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To
<1281664250-2703-1-git-send-email-newren@gmail.com>
Prior to c85c792 (pull --rebase: be cleverer with rebased upstream
branches, 2008-01-26), pull --rebase would run
  git rebase $merge_head
which resulted in a call to
  git format-patch ... --ignore-if-in-upstream $merge_head..$cur_branch

This resulted in patches from $merge_head..$cur_branch being applied, as long as they did not already exist in $cur_branch..$merge_head. Unfortunately, when upstream is rebased, $merge_head..$cur_branch also refers to "old" commits that have already been rebased upstream, meaning that many patches that were already fixed upstream would be reapplied. This could result in many spurious conflicts, as well as reintroduce patches that were intentionally dropped upstream.

So the algorithm was changed in c85c792 (pull --rebase: be cleverer with
rebased upstream branches, 2008-01-26) and d44e712 (pull: support rebased
upstream + fetch + pull --rebase, 2009-07-19).  Defining $old_remote_ref to
be the most recent entry in the reflog for @{upstream} that is an ancestor
of $cur_branch, pull --rebase was changed to run
  git rebase --onto $merge_head $old_remote_ref
which results in a call to
  git format-patch ... --ignore-if-in-upstream $old_remote_ref..$cur_branch

The whole point of this change was to reduce the number of commits being reapplied, by avoiding commits that upstream already has or had.

In the rebased upstream case, this change achieved that purpose. It is worth noting, though, that since $old_remote_ref is always an ancestor of $cur_branch (by its definition), format-patch will not know what upstream is and thus will not be able to determine if any patches are already upstream; they will all be reapplied.

In the non-rebased upstream case, this new form is usually the same as the
original code but in some cases $old_remote_ref can be an ancestor of
   $(git merge-base $merge_head $cur_branch)
meaning that instead of avoiding reapplying commits that upstream already
has, it actually includes more such commits.  Combined with the fact that
format-patch can no longer detect commits that are already upstream (since
it is no longer told what upstream is), results in lots of confusion for
users (e.g. "git is giving me lots of conflicts in stuff I didn't even
change since my last push.")

Cases where additional commits could be reapplied include forking from a commit other than the tracking branch, or amending/rebasing after pushing. Cases where the inability to detect upstreamed commits cause problems include independent discovery of a fix and having your patches get upstreamed by some alternative route (e.g. pulling your changes to a third machine, pushing from there, and then going back to your original machine and trying to pull --rebase).

Fix the non-rebased upstream case by ignoring $old_remote_ref whenever it is contained in $(git merge-base $merge_head $cur_branch). This should have no affect on the rebased upstream case.

Acked-by: Santi Béjar <santi@agolina.net>
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
---
 git-pull.sh     |    9 +++++++++
 t/t5520-pull.sh |    4 ++--
 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/git-pull.sh b/git-pull.sh
index a09a44e..8eb74d4 100755
--- a/git-pull.sh
+++ b/git-pull.sh
@@ -273,6 +273,15 @@ then
 	exit
 fi
 
+if test true = "$rebase"
+then
+	o=$(git show-branch --merge-base $curr_branch $merge_head $oldremoteref)
+	if test "$oldremoteref" = "$o"
+	then
+		unset oldremoteref
+	fi
+fi
+
 merge_name=$(git fmt-merge-msg $log_arg <"$GIT_DIR/FETCH_HEAD") || exit
 case "$rebase" in
 true)
diff --git a/t/t5520-pull.sh b/t/t5520-pull.sh
index 85a6b23..0b489f5 100755
--- a/t/t5520-pull.sh
+++ b/t/t5520-pull.sh
@@ -186,7 +186,7 @@ test_expect_success 'setup for detecting upstreamed changes' '
 	)
 '
 
-test_expect_failure 'git pull --rebase detects upstreamed changes' '
+test_expect_success 'git pull --rebase detects upstreamed changes' '
 	(cd dst &&
 	 git pull --rebase &&
 	 test -z "$(git ls-files -u)"
@@ -215,7 +215,7 @@ test_expect_success 'setup for avoiding reapplying old patches' '
 	)
 '
 
-test_expect_failure 'git pull --rebase does not reapply old patches' '
+test_expect_success 'git pull --rebase does not reapply old patches' '
 	(cd dst &&
 	 test_must_fail git pull --rebase &&
 	 test 1 = $(find .git/rebase-apply -name "000*" | wc -l)
-- 
1.7.2.1.43.gbae63
Previous: Elijah Newren
Message 4 of 4 in “[PATCHv5 0/2] Fix spurious conflicts with pull --rebase”
  1. Elijah NewrenAug 13, 2010
  2. Ævar Arnfjörð BjarmasonAug 13, 2010
  3. 1/2 t5520-pull: Add testcases showing spurious conflicts from git pull --rebaseElijah Newren, Aug 13, 2010
  4. 2/2 pull --rebase: Avoid spurious conflicts and reapplying unnecessary patchesElijah Newren, Aug 13, 2010

Read the whole thread, see it on lore, or plain text.

$ cat FOOTERMessages come from the public archive at lore.kernel.org/git, fetched every hour. The front page is chosen and written each morning by an AI editor and can be wrong; the threads themselves are the record. About and API. For agents: an MCP server at https://gitlist.dev/mcp, and any thread, story or person page as Markdown by adding .md to its URL (or sending Accept: text/markdown). Details in /llms.txt.