Re: Segfault with merge-tree on multiple Git versions
- From
Charlie Smurthwaite <charlie@atechmedia.com>
- Date
- Mar 27, 2013, 21:10 UTC
- Message-ID
- <51536063.50405@atechmedia.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20130327200113.GC26380@sigill.intra.peff.net>
On 27/03/13 20:01, Jeff King wrote:
Show 33 quoted lines
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 07:45:21PM +0000, John Keeping wrote: > >> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 02:16:24PM -0500, Jed Brown wrote: >>> Charlie Smurthwaite <charlie@atechmedia.com> writes: >>> >>>> Yes, I would need to be able to do this on a bare repo for my use case. >>> And if it's on the server, you don't want this to be observable, so >>> you don't want HEAD to move around. I don't know a better way than: >>> >>> $ git clone --shared -b upstream-branch bare-repo.git /tmp/merge-repo >>> $ cd /tmp/merge-repo >>> $ git pull URL incoming-branch >>> >>> Cloning with --shared just writes a path into .git/objects/info/alternatives >>> and it doesn't need to be on the same file system (unlike --local). >>> >>> Since 'git merge-tree' just works with trees, it has less information >>> than 'git merge'. >> You could use a temporary index and do something like: >> >> rm -f TMP_INDEX >> GIT_INDEX_FILE=TMP_INDEX >> export GIT_INDEX_FILE >> git read-tree -m $base $ours $theirs && >> git merge-index git-merge-one-file -a >> >> then inspect that with "git diff-index --cached $ours". > That is precisely how we do it at GitHub. You probably want to add in > "--aggressive" to your read-tree to cover a few more simple cases. If > there are conflicts, we just bail and say "this can't be merged", and > expect the user to do it themselves using git. > > -Peff
This may be ideal. I will compare it with merge-tree to see which will suit best. Thank you everyone for your help here.
Charlie