Re: [PATCH] git-apply: try threeway first when "--3way" is used
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Apr 6, 2021, 06:13 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqqblas2b52.fsf@gitster.g>
- In-Reply-To
- <20210406025551.25213-1-jerry@skydio.com>
Jerry Zhang <jerry@skydio.com> writes:
> The apply_fragments() method of "git apply" > can silently apply patches incorrectly if > a file has repeating contents. In these > cases a three-way merge can apply it correctly
Is that "can apply"? Isn't it "has a better chance to correctly apply"?
Show 11 quoted lines
> or show a conflict. However, because the patches > apply "successfully" using apply_fragments(), > git will never fall back to the merge, even > if the "--3way" flag is used, and the user has > no way to ensure correctness by forcing the > three-way merge method. > > Change the behavior so that when "--3way" is > used, git will always try the three-way merge > first and will only fall back to apply_fragments() > in caseswhere blobs are not available or some other
Missing SP before two words.
> error (but not in the case of a merge conflict).
We may want to note a possible backward compatibility fallout to warn reviewers here in the proposed log message.
Show 7 quoted lines
> -3:: > --3way:: > + Attempt 3-way merge if the patch records the identity of blobs it is supposed > + to apply to and we have those blobs available locally, possibly leaving the > conflict markers in the files in the working tree for the user to > resolve. This option implies the `--index` option, and is incompatible > with the `--reject` and the `--cached` options.
OK. This patch obviously expects it to graduate before the other "--3way and --cached at the same time" patch.
Show 10 quoted lines
> diff --git a/apply.c b/apply.c
> index 6695a931e979a968b28af88d425d0c76ba17d0d4..62d65ef8d9c0b68857db55198c73db1f41589df1 100644
> --- a/apply.c
> +++ b/apply.c
> @@ -3569,10 +3569,10 @@ static int try_threeway(struct apply_state *state,
> write_object_file("", 0, blob_type, &pre_oid);
> else if (get_oid(patch->old_oid_prefix, &pre_oid) ||
> read_blob_object(&buf, &pre_oid, patch->old_mode))
> - return error(_("repository lacks the necessary blob to fall back on 3-way merge."));
> + return error(_("repository lacks the necessary blob to do 3-way merge."));s/do/perform/ perhaps?
Show 6 quoted lines
> @@ -3637,10 +3637,9 @@ static int apply_data(struct apply_state *state, struct patch *patch,
> if (load_preimage(state, &image, patch, st, ce) < 0)
> return -1;
>
> - if (patch->direct_to_threeway ||
> - apply_fragments(state, &image, patch) < 0) {The original was "If the logic flow that came before us already decided we should skip the straight application of the patch and jump directly to the three-way codepath. Otherwise try the straight application and perform 3-way only when it fails".
The "direct-to-threeway" logic was introduced by 099f3c42 (apply: --3way with add/add conflict, 2012-06-07).
Show 5 quoted lines
> + if (!state->threeway || try_threeway(state, &image, patch, st, ce) < 0) {
> /* Note: with --reject, apply_fragments() returns 0 */
> - if (!state->threeway || try_threeway(state, &image, patch, st, ce) < 0)
> + if (patch->direct_to_threeway || apply_fragments(state, &image, patch) < 0)
> return -1;This says something different. "If 3-way was not asked, jump directly to inside the block. Otherwise, try 3-way first, and go inside the block only if 3-way did not work." And the inside the block is the straight patch application. It says "if we have already decided we should do the 3-way and nothing else, just fail. Otherwise try the straight patch application and if it fails, then fail the whole thing."
This looks like a correct "inversion" of the fallback codepath.
Show 6 quoted lines
> @@ -5017,7 +5016,7 @@ int apply_parse_options(int argc, const char **argv,
> OPT_BOOL(0, "apply", force_apply,
> N_("also apply the patch (use with --stat/--summary/--check)")),
> OPT_BOOL('3', "3way", &state->threeway,
> - N_( "attempt three-way merge if a patch does not apply")),
> + N_( "attempt three-way merge, fall back on normal patch if that fails")),OK.
Overall, the change is very cleanly done.
Will queue. Thanks.