Is XDL_MERGE_ZEALOUS too zealous (or maybe not zealous enough)?
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Oct 19, 2008, 22:52 UTC
- Message-ID
- <7v3ais5hb3.fsf_-_@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <7vhc785izq.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
> Again, good eyes. I think the two lines should go; my fault at cdb22c4 > (Merge branch 'jc/better-conflict-resolution' into next, 2008-09-02).
Hmm, I am somewhat unhappy. If you run:
$ git checkout cdb22c4^
$ git merge cdb22c4^2
$ git checkout --conflict=diff3 builtin-checkout.cand look at builtin-checkout.c. You will find this:
<<<<<<< ours
/* --track without -b should DWIM */
if (0 < opts.track && !opts.new_branch) {
const char *argv0 = argv[0];
...
opts.new_branch = argv0 + 1;
} if (opts.track == BRANCH_TRACK_UNSPECIFIED)
opts.track = git_branch_track;
|||||||
if (!opts.new_branch && (opts.track != git_branch_track))
die("git checkout: --track and --no-track require -b");
=======
if (conflict_style) {
opts.merge = 1; /* implied */
git_xmerge_config("merge.conflictstyle", conflict_style, NULL);
} if (!opts.new_branch && (opts.track != git_branch_track))
die("git checkout: --track and --no-track require -b");>>>>>>> theirs
The two lines in the middle was from the common ancestor, which was not touched by the merged branch (that added the "if (conflict_style) {}" block) and was lost by a rewrite in "ours".
However, the usual simplified merge shows this (run "git checkout --merge builtin-checkout.c" if you have done the above):
<<<<<<< ours
/* --track without -b should DWIM */
if (0 < opts.track && !opts.new_branch) {
const char *argv0 = argv[0];
...
opts.new_branch = argv0 + 1;
} if (opts.track == BRANCH_TRACK_UNSPECIFIED)
opts.track = git_branch_track;
=======
if (conflict_style) {
opts.merge = 1; /* implied */
git_xmerge_config("merge.conflictstyle", conflict_style, NULL);
} if (!opts.new_branch && (opts.track != git_branch_track))
die("git checkout: --track and --no-track require -b");>>>>>>> theirs
Removing the two lines from the simplified "theirs" is not what I would suggest (it would be actively wrong), but I wonder if we can do something clever to help users with a merge like this.