Re: [GIT PATCH] USB patches for 2.6.17

From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Date: Jun 22, 2006, 21:01 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0606221354070.6483@g5.osdl.org>
In-Reply-To: <20060622200147.GA10712@mars.ravnborg.org>

On Thu, 22 Jun 2006, Sam Ravnborg wrote:

> 
> Personally I'm still missing two things:
> 1) A command to let me see what this Linus guy have applied compared to
> my tree - without touching anything in my tree. bk changes -R

	git fetch linus
	git log ..linus

Yes, it will fetch the things into your database, unlike BK, but that's kind of the point. That's what makes branches so powerful (you can do a lot more than "bk changes -R").

> 2) A dry-run of a fetch+pull. I can do that if I really study the man
> pages I know. But "git pull --dry-run" would be more convinient.

Hmm? Again, do

	git fetch <thing-to-be-fetched>

into a local branch first. That gets it into your repo, so that you can do things.

After that, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "--dry-run". Do you mean to know about file-level conflicts? You do need to do the merge in order to know whether the conflicts can be resolved, but even without doing the merge you can look for _file_level_ conflicts by other means.

I don't think anybody has done it, but a script like

	OTHER="$1"
	BASE=$(git-merge-base HEAD $OTHER) || exit
	git-merge-tree $BASE HEAD $OTHER | grep -v '^0'

will show if there were file-level conflicts (in a pretty strange format, admittedly).

Of course, 99% of the time, a three-way merge will just handle those fine (the output from "git-merge-tree" is enough to know to do a three-way merge on temp-files, if you want to try that).

		Linus