Re: Need help migrating workflow from svn to git.

From: Igor Djordjevic <igor.d.djordjevic@gmail.com>
Date: Dec 15, 2017, 18:58 UTC
Message-ID: <19d67f01-5e7d-3792-52f4-52da86bca5e5@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqvah8q7cg.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>

On 15/12/2017 17:33, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> 
>     $ git fetch <remote> <branch>
>     $ git checkout -m -B <master> FETCH_HEAD

... aaand that`s how you do it[1] without a temporary branch :)

Junio, what about consecutive runs, while merge conflicts are still unresolved?

Seeing Josef having a pretty relaxed flow, and his cron job running every 15 minutes, would adding something like:

    $ git add -u
    $ git reset

... to the mix, to "silence" actually still unresolved merge conflicts, making next script execution possible, make sense?

Yes, `git diff` won`t be the same as if conflicts were still in, but it might be worth it in this specific case, conflicting parts still easily visible between conflict markers.

Regards, Buga

[1] On 15/12/2017 19:24, Igor Djordjevic wrote:

Show 27 quoted lines

> 
>     git checkout -b temp &&               #1
>     git fetch &&                          #2
>     git branch -f master origin/master && #3
>     git checkout -m master &&             #4
>     git add -u &&                         #5
>     git reset &&                          #6
>     git branch -d temp                    #7
> 
> Explanation:
>  1. Create temporary branch where we are, switching to it, so we can 
>     update "master" without local modifications
>  2. Fetch latest updates
>  3. Update "master" to fetched "origin/master"
>  4. Switch to updated "master", merging local modifications
>  5. Mark any pending merge conflicts as resolved by staging them...
>  6. ... and unstage them right away
>  7. Delete temporary branch
> 
> Step (4) is what merges your local modifications with remote updates 
> (leaving conflicts, if any), where steps (5) and (6) are not needed 
> for a single run, but in case you don`t resolve conflicts before next 
> cron job executes this script again, step (1) will now fail without 
> them because of (still) unresolved merge conflicts.
> 
> So, as you seem to be pretty at ease with your flow, you might prefer 
> leaving those two steps (5, 6) in.