Re: custom merge driver vs. CONFLICT (delete/modify)
- From
- Enrico Weigelt <weigelt@metux.de>
- Date
- Sep 26, 2010, 14:37 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20100926143732.GA2984@nibiru.local>
- In-Reply-To
- <1285445444-sup-3857@flatty.sascha.silbe.org>
* Sascha Silbe <sascha-ml-reply-to-2010-3@silbe.org> wrote:
Hi,
> For some files (those touched by rerunning auto*) I want the local > version to always take precedence. For some other files (autogen.sh, PO > files) I want the upstream version to take precedence. For all the rest > I want conflicts to produce an error.
Perhaps you better should use an downstream branch (which is frequently rebased onto upstream), which removes the autogenerated files and then always regenerate them from scratch. This is what I'm doing in in the OSS-QM project [1][2]. I'm also making sure that the source tree follows a set of rules [3] which are IMHO necessary for clean build process and fix it if needed in my downstream branches. Looks like we're doing quite similar things - maybe put or efforts together ? :)
Show 5 quoted lines
> This has worked fine so far by using custom merge drivers, but while > adding the second one I encountered a problem: Merge drivers are only > invoked for modify/modify (and maybe add/add) conflicts. > More specifically a delete/modify conflict will cause git-merge to bail > out directly without calling the merge driver to resolve the conflict.
Yes. I've sometimes encountered the same problem. Someone here already suggested using git-filter-branch for that. I'll yet have to investigate such an transformation process is stable against incremental updates (meaning: strictly deterministic - hashes stay the same on repeated imports), so the history stays intact.
> Such a conflict occurred because the packaging people removed autogen.sh > (which is reasonable for them, but not for me).
In this case you probably want the conflict, to see what's happening and react in a comprehensive way (eg. re-adding it). It could become even more interesting when they someday reintroduce it, because maybe an autoreconf call won't suffice anymore - in that case you'll also want to know about this, and the conflict is the wakeup call.
> Is there a way to either resolve all kinds of conflicts in favour of > one side (like -X <side>) or always take one side (like -s <side>) for > a specific set of files?
Even if it does not answer your question: maybe this isn't really what you originally want (go back to the root question: "what is the real purpose of my project ?") and makes more trouble than what you're trying to go around. Perhaps better don't touch these files at all, but always regenerate them on each build.
cu
[1] https://sourceforge.net/p/oss-qm/home/ [2] http://www.metux.de/download/oss-qm/normalized_repository.pdf [3] http://www.metux.de/index.php/de/component/content/article/57.html
-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Enrico Weigelt, metux IT service -- http://www.metux.de/ phone: +49 36207 519931 email: weigelt@metux.de mobile: +49 151 27565287 icq: 210169427 skype: nekrad666 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Embedded-Linux / Portierung / Opensource-QM / Verteilte Systeme ----------------------------------------------------------------------