Re: Need help migrating workflow from svn to git.

From: Josef Wolf <jw@raven.inka.de>
Date: Dec 20, 2017, 11:43 UTC
Message-ID: <20171220114337.GE18542@raven.inka.de>
In-Reply-To: <19d67f01-5e7d-3792-52f4-52da86bca5e5@gmail.com>

Thanks to you both for your patience with me. Sorry for the late reply, my day job was needing me ;-)

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 07:58:14PM +0100, Igor Djordjevic wrote:

> On 15/12/2017 17:33, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > 
> >     $ git fetch <remote> <branch>
> >     $ git checkout -m -B <master> FETCH_HEAD

For some reason, this seems to double the local modifications. After executing the following commands:

  rm -rf reposA reposB
  
  git init reposA
  (
    cd reposA
    echo 1 >>1
    echo 2 >>2
    git add 1 2
    git commit -m1
  )
  
  git clone reposA reposB
  
  (
    cd reposA
    echo 1 >>1
    git commit -a -m2
  )
  
  (
    cd reposB
    echo 3 >>2
    git fetch
    git checkout -m -B master FETCH_HEAD
  )

git-diff gives me:

  $ diff --git a/2 b/2
  index 0cfbf08..4e8a2de 100644
  --- a/2
  +++ b/2
  @@ -1 +1,3 @@
   2
  +3
  +3

With Igor's set of commands, I did not see this doubling:

Show 7 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

Show 10 quoted lines

> ... 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

This would be added after the "git checkout -m -B master FETCH_HEAD" command?

Show 6 quoted lines

> ... 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.

That means, the conflict is still there, but git would think this is an ordinary modification?

-- 
Josef Wolf
jw@raven.inka.de