Re: submodules and merging (Was: Re: [PATCH 02/30] merge-recursive: Fix logic ordering issue)

> On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 9:59 PM, Jacob Keller <jacob.keller@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 9:13 AM, Jacob Keller <jacob.keller@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> But this line of though might be distracting from your original point,
>>>>> which was that we have so much to keep in mind when doing tree
>>>>> operations (flags, D/F conflicts, now submodules too). I wonder how
>>>>> a sensible refactoring would look like to detangle all these aspects,
>>>>> but still keeping Git fast and not overengineered.
>>>>
>>>> I think given how complex a lot of these code paths are, that an
>>>> attempt to refactor it a bit to detangle some of the mess would be
>>>> well worth the time. I'd suspect it might make handling the more
>>>> complex task of actually resolving conflicts to be easier, so the
>>>> effort to clean up the code here should be worth it.
>>>
>>> I think changing from a 4-way merge to a 3-way merge would make things
>>> much better, as Junio outlined here:
>>>
>>> https://public-inbox.org/git/xmqqd147kpdm.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com/
>>>
>>> I don't know of any way to detangle the other aspects, yet.
>
> Jonathan Nieder and me tried some pair programming some time ago[1]
> plumbing the repository object through most of the low level internals, which
> would help in detangling submodule merges as then these merges could
> be done in-core, just as Junio laid out.
>
> [1] https://github.com/stefanbeller/git/tree/object-store-jrn-rebased
>

>> I agree, that is absolutely a (big) step in the right direction.
>
>
> I agree as well; A better (abstracted) merge backend would be huge for
> the future of Git.
>
> Thanks,
> Stefan