On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 9:07 AM, Lars Schneider <larsxschneider@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 16 Apr 2018, at 04:03, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 6:44 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> I think Elijah's corrected was_tracked() also does not care "has >>> this been renamed". >> >> I'm perfectly happy with the slightly smarter patches. My patch was >> really just an RFC and because I had tried it out. >> >>> One thing that makes me curious is what happens (and what we want to >>> happen) when such a "we already have the changes the side branch >>> tries to bring in" path has local (i.e. not yet in the index) >>> changes. For a dirty file that trivially merges (e.g. a path we >>> modified since our histories forked, while the other side didn't do >>> anything, has local changes in the working tree), we try hard to >>> make the merge succeed while keeping the local changes, and we >>> should be able to do the same in this case, too. >> >> I think it might be nice, but probably not really worth it. >> >> I find the "you can merge even if some files are dirty" to be really >> convenient, because I often keep stupid test patches in my tree that I >> may not even intend to commit, and I then use the same tree for >> merging. >> >> For example, I sometimes end up editing the Makefile for the release >> version early, but I won't *commit* that until I actually cut the >> release. But if I pull some branch that has also changed the Makefile, >> it's not worth any complexity to try to be nice about the dirty state. >> >> If it's a file that actually *has* been changed in the branch I'm >> merging, and I'm more than happy to just stage the patch (or throw it >> away - I think it's about 50:50 for me). >> >> So I don't think it's a big deal, and I'd rather have the merge fail >> very early with "that file has seen changes in the branch you are >> merging" than add any real complexity to the merge logic. > > I am happy to see this discussion and the patches, because long rebuilds > are a constant annoyance for us. We might have been bitten by the exact > case discussed here, but more often, we have a slightly different > situation: > > An engineer works on a task branch and runs incremental builds — all > is good. The engineer switches to another branch to review another > engineer's work. This other branch changes a low-level header file, > but no rebuild is triggered. The engineer switches back to the previous > task branch. At this point, the incremental build will rebuild > everything, as the compiler thinks that the low-level header file has > been changed (because the mtime is different). > > Of course, this problem can be solved with a separate worktree. However, > our engineers forget about that sometimes, and then, they are annoyed by > a 4h rebuild. > > Is this situation a problem for others too? > If yes, what do you think about the following approach: > > What if Git kept a LRU list that contains file path, content hash, and > mtime of any file that is removed or modified during a checkout. If a > file is checked out later with the exact same path and content hash, > then Git could set the mtime to the previous value. This way the > compiler would not think that the content has been changed since the > last rebuild. That would only work until they actuall *did* a build on the second branch, and upon changing back, how would this detect that it needs to update mtime again? I don't think this solution really works. Ultimately, the problem is that the build tool relies on the mtime to determine what to rebuild. I think this would cause worse problems because we *wouldn't* rebuild in the case. How is git supposed to know that we rebuilt when switching branches or not? Thanks, Jake > > I think that would fix the problem that our engineers run into and also > the problem that Linus experienced during the merge, wouldn't it? > > Thanks, > Lars
