Playing around with GIT, we encountered the following strange situation for
which we would
like to have an answer:
Scenario
========
We want to merge the range B to D from branch B1 to master
Master: o-
\
Branch B1: A-B-C-D-E
Commit B:
---------
FluidSolver::FluidSolver(int argc, char* argv[]) {
init(argc, argv);
// test edit 1: a + b
}
Commit C:
--------
FluidSolver::FluidSolver(int argc, char* argv[]) {
init(argc, argv);
// test edit 1: a + b
// test edit 2: a - b
}
Commit D:
--------
FluidSolver::FluidSolver(int argc, char* argv[]) {
init(argc, argv);
// test edit 1: a + b
// test edit 2: a - b
// test edit 3: a * b
}
Commit E:
--------
FluidSolver::FluidSolver(int argc, char* argv[]) {
init(argc, argv);
// test edit 1: a + b
// test edit 2: a - b
// test edit 3: a * b
// test edit 4: a / b
}
Range merge (the GIT way):
=========================
1) Switch to Branch B1
2) Create a temporary branch which does not contain anything beyond commit D
$ git checkout -b volatileBranch D
Master: o-
\
Branch B1: A-B-C-D-E
\
Branch volatileBranch: (A)-(B)-(C)-(D)
3) Rebase volatile branch to master from commit (B) to master's HEAD
git rebase --onto master (A)
Branch volatileBranch: (B)-(C)-(D)
/
Master: o-
\
Branch B1: A-B-C-D-E
Rebasing output:
----------------
First, rewinding head to replay your work on top of it...
Applying: test edit 2: a - b
error: patch failed: fluidsolver.cpp:28
error: fluidsolver.cpp: patch does not apply
Using index info to reconstruct a base tree...
Falling back to patching base and 3-way merge...
Auto-merging fluidsolver.cpp
CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in fluidsolver.cpp
Failed to merge in the changes.
Patch failed at 0001 test edit 2: a - b
When you have resolved this problem run "git rebase --continue".
If you would prefer to skip this patch, instead run "git rebase --skip".
To restore the original branch and stop rebasing run "git rebase --abort".
Conflicts:
----------
FluidSolver::FluidSolver(int argc, char* argv[]) {
init(argc, argv);
<<<<<<< HEAD:fluidsolver.cpp
=======
// test edit 1: a + b
// test edit 2: a - b
>>>>>>> test edit 2: a - b:fluidsolver.cpp
}
After manually resolving the conflict and continuing the rebasing
with git rebase --continue, we are finally finished.
Since we only had updates in branch 1, it is astonishing that we get a
conflict at all.
Same situation works like a charme in subversion.
We would be happy to get an explanation for this merge bahaviour, since
many edits in large projects could as a matter of principle result a lot of
merge conflicts
which all have to be treated manually.
We believe that GIT's interface for range merges needs to get more user
friendly.
Since steps 1) - 3) use already developed components of GIT, there should be
a layer above 'em
which performs a range merge by internally calling 1) - 3).
Example: git cherry-pick $from_branch@startCommitHash
$to_branch@endCommitHash
Greetings,
Babak Sayyid Hosseini
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/cherry-pick---since---tp10105685p24512201.html
Sent from the git mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html