# RE: needs merge 3 messages from 2006-01-07 to 2006-01-10. Participants: Brown, Len, Junio C Hamano, Daniel Barkalow. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/2987 ## Brown, Len, 2006-01-07 10:33 Subject: RE: needs merge Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/F7DC2337C7631D4386A2DF6E8FB22B3005A1336F%40hdsmsx401.amr.corp.intel.com ``` yes, it did the right thing to the source. as a user, "cute" isn't the first word that comes to mind:-) thanks, -Len >-----Original Message----- >From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org >[mailto:git-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Junio C Hamano >Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 5:29 AM >To: Brown, Len >Cc: git@vger.kernel.org >Subject: Re: needs merge > >Len Brown writes: > >> however, when i then merged that branch into another there seem to >> be some phantom conflicts on the very same files. > >First of all, does the final merge result look correct, without >conflict markers? I've slurped from your tree and tried the >merge myself and it seems that both branches and the merge >result of these branches have the conflicting path the same way, >so I think it did the right thing for you, but I am just trying >to make sure. > >> Do I understand all this output to mean that git attempted two >> different merges, and discarded the 1st attempt in favor of >the second? > >Not really. This is Fredrik's "recursive" merge in action. > >acpica (ed03f4) is merged into test (e3627f), but these two >branches have criss-cross merge history and there are two >equally valid common ancestors, 0aec63 and ed349a. > >What it did was first to find a merge between these two common >ancestors, during which it found conflicting merge on those >paths. > >It then used this merge result (with conflict markers still in >them!) as the "virtual common ancestor" to merge the ed03f4 and >e3627f commits; because both branches have resolved the >conflicting part the same way earlier, this three-way merge >cancels out the part that are marked with conflict markers in >the virtual common ancestor (this is the cutest part of Fredrik >merge algorithm). > >- >To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in >the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > ``` ## Junio C Hamano, 2006-01-07 21:06 Subject: Re: needs merge Message-ID: <7vy81reoie.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/7vy81reoie.fsf%40assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net In-Reply-To: ``` "Brown, Len" writes: > yes, it did the right thing to the source. > > as a user, "cute" isn't the first word that comes to mind:-) Fair enough. I agree that it is rather unnerving from the user's point of view, especially because the "recursive merging of the ancestors" part is not trivially obvious why it works. The issue it tries to address (and the other merge strategy, "resolve", addresses a bit differently) is to detect when two sides of criss-cross merged branches resolved the same conflicts differently in the past. When merging E and F in this ancestry graph: A----C---E----? / \ / / / \/ / / /\ / / / \ / O----B----D---F suppose that A and B made conflicting modifications on path P, C and D resolved the conflicts by taking its own side, and E and F further made independent changes to the path. When we try to merge E and F, if we happen to pick B as the merge base, normal three-way merge between E and F using B as base would say that E has change between B and C while F's version stayed the same in the area that change touches, and you would end up with merge result that is diff(D,F) on top of E. If we used A, then the result would be diff(C,E) on top of F. Doing either of these silently is not desirable [*1*]. When we use a tree that is an automerge (with conflict markers) between A and B as the merge base for E and F, what happens is that the three-way merge notices the part with conflict markers as a whole is rewritten to one version in E and to another in F, removes the original (which is the conflicting merge between A and B) and replaces that with conflicts between E and F with its own conflict markers, so decision to resolve the conflicting merge between A and B which C and D resolved differently is given to the user who tries to merge E and F. If C and D resolved the conflicting merge the same way, the "phantom conflict" you observed still happens while merging A and B to come up with the merge base tree, but the part will be rewritten the same way in both E and F, so the result will merge cleanly. [Footnote] *1* While I was trying out the above scenario, I noticed that resolve strategy does not notice this and ended up picking one ancestor at random. I think this is because case #16 covers only the case where the path P is not changed between C and E and D and F, and case #11 must pick an ancestor and picks one at random. Daniel, any thoughts on this? -- >8 -- #!/bin/sh unset GIT_DIR GIT_OBJECT_DIRECTORY test -d .git || { echo Run this in a newly created empty directory please. exit 1 } : <<\EOF Criss Cross Merge A----C---E----? / \ / / / \/ / / /\ / / / \ / O----B----D---F EOF git init-db for l in a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z do echo $l done >testfile git add testfile git commit -m 'Initial' git tag O git branch bottom git checkout -b top cp testfile testfile.orig tr 'm-p' 'M-P' testfile git update-index testfile git commit -m A git tag A git checkout bottom tr 'm-p' 'A-D' testfile git update-index testfile git commit -m B git tag B git merge -s ours 'D=A+B=B' HEAD A git tag D git checkout top git merge -s ours 'C=A+B=A' HEAD B git tag C mv testfile j; tr 'a' 'A' testfile; rm -f j git update-index testfile git commit -m E git tag E git checkout bottom mv testfile j; tr 'z' 'Z' testfile; rm -f j git update-index testfile git commit -m F git tag F rm -f testfile.orig git checkout master git reset --hard A git merge -s resolve V HEAD B git update-index testfile git commit -m 'V' git tag V git show-branch git checkout top echo "** RECURSIVE **" git merge -s recursive recursive HEAD F echo theirs git diff --theirs echo ours git diff --ours git reset --hard echo "** RESOLVE **" git merge -s resolve resolve HEAD F echo theirs git diff HEAD^2 echo ours git diff HEAD^ ``` ## Daniel Barkalow, 2006-01-10 05:21 Subject: Re: needs merge Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/Pine.LNX.4.64.0601092356400.25300%40iabervon.org In-Reply-To: <7vy81reoie.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> ``` On Sat, 7 Jan 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote: > *1* While I was trying out the above scenario, I noticed that > resolve strategy does not notice this and ended up picking one > ancestor at random. I think this is because case #16 covers > only the case where the path P is not changed between C and E > and D and F, and case #11 must pick an ancestor and picks one at > random. Daniel, any thoughts on this? Right; in this case, we really want to use a merge program that takes multiple ancestors and handles the equivalent to case #16 at the hunk level, but we don't have such a program available. Such a program would be able to identify whether case #16 ever actually occurs for a hunk, which is important because there will generally be a bunch of case #11s at the file level, even if there aren't any reverts (if the common ancestors disagreed before, and the two branches both changed the file to something entirely new, with no reverts, either ancestor is correct to use and the merge result will be useful; we only need to be careful if there were reverts somewhere, which leads to the possibility of false sharing between a branch and an ancestor, and thereby to ignoring the revert, and my feeling is that rejecting case #11 with divergant ancestors would lead to too many conflicts to make crossing merges useable). One possibility, actually, is to steal a trick from the recursive strategy, and have a multi-ancestor merge program which merges all of the ancestors with a merge-style diff (i.e., merge output, but on diff instead of diff3, with all differences being conflicts), and then uses the result as the ancestor for the three-way merge. It seems to me that this would capture the central advantage of the recursive strategy without quite so much work. Or I might be completely wrong; I'm kind of worn out, and may not be thinking clearly. -Daniel *This .sig left intentionally blank* ```