Re: How to automatically correct an almost correct auto-merge?

> Hi,
>
>
> Briefly:
>
> Neighboring areas of a file are modified in two branches.  Git
> merges the two branches without conflicts, but the result is not
> semantically correct.  How can I teach git to produce the correct
> merge result when performing the same merge later on?
>
>
> Longer:
>
> The following commands create a file and two branches, both of them
> modifying the file by adding lines in the same area:
>
> git init cat>file<<\EOF 1
>
> 2 EOF git add file git commit -m file git apply<<\EOF diff --git
> a/file b/file index 1c3e7efc..121366a2 100644 --- a/file +++ b/file
> @@ -1,3 +1,5 @@ 1
>
> +a + 2 EOF git commit -a -m a git checkout -b branch HEAD^ git
> apply<<\EOF diff --git a/file b/file index 1c3e7efc..f2e91d4f 100644
> --- a/file +++ b/file @@ -1,3 +1,6 @@ 1 +b + +c
>
> 2 EOF git commit -a -m 'b c' git checkout master
>
>
> At this point I merge 'branch' and git produces the following
> result:
>
> $ git merge branch Auto-merging file Merge made by the 'recursive'
> strategy. file |    3 +++ 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0
> deletions(-) $ cat file 1 b
>
> c
>
> a
>
> 2
>
>
> Now, these changes and the merge above are the minimal receipe which
> corresponds to a real merge I'm having trouble with at dayjob.  Just
> imagine that '1' and '2' are the beginning and end of a function,
> 'b' is the declaration of a new local variable, and 'a' and 'c' are
> new code blocks.  As it happens, the semantically correct result
> would be the following:
>
> 1 b
>
> a
>
> c
>
> 2
>
> i.e. 'a' must be executed before 'c'.
>
> I corrected the merge result manually, but these two branches are
> merged a couple of times a day into an integration branch, and they
> will likely cook for a few weeks, which means a lot of merges, and a
> lot of manual corrections.  So I'm looking for a way to teach git to
> produce the semantically correct merge result.  Something like
> 'rerere' would be great, but of course I can't use 'rerere' in this
> case, because there are no merge conflicts at all...
>
> Any ideas?  Did someone deal with similar issues before?
>