On 05/24, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > +Conflict normalization
> > +----------------------
> > +
> > +To try and re-do a conflict resolution, even when different merge
> > +strategies are used, 'rerere' computes a conflict ID for each
> > +conflict in the file.
> > +
> > +This is done by discarding the common ancestor version in the
> > +diff3-style, and re-ordering the two sides of the conflict, in
> > +alphabetic order.
>
> s/discarding.*-style/normalising the conflicted section to 'merge' style/
>
> The motivation behind the normalization should probably be given
> upfront in the first paragraph. It is to ensure the recorded
> resolutions can be looked up from the rerere database for
> application, even when branches are merged in different order. I am
> not sure what you meant by even when different merge stratagies are
> used; I'd drop that if I were writing the paragraph.
What I meant was when different conflict styles are used, and when the
branches are merged in different orders. But merge strategies is
obviously not a good word for that. Will rephrase this.
> > +Using this technique a conflict that looks as follows when for example
> > +'master' was merged into a topic branch:
> > +
> > + <<<<<<< HEAD
> > + foo
> > + =======
> > + bar
> > + >>>>>>> master
> > +
> > +and the opposite way when the topic branch is merged into 'master':
> > +
> > + <<<<<<< HEAD
> > + bar
> > + =======
> > + foo
> > + >>>>>>> topic
> > +
> > +can be recognized as the same conflict, and can automatically be
> > +re-resolved by 'rerere', as the SHA-1 sum of the two conflicts would
> > +be calculated from 'bar<NUL>foo<NUL>' in both cases.
>
> You earlier talked about normalizing and reordering, but did not
> talk about "concatenate both with NUL in between and hash", so the
> explanation in the last two lines are not quite understandable by
> mere mortals, even though I know which part of the code you are
> referring to. When you talk about hasing, you may want to make sure
> the readers understand that the branch label on <<< and >>> lines
> are ignored.
>
> > +If there are multiple conflicts in one file, they are all appended to
> > +one another, both in the 'preimage' file as well as in the conflict
> > +ID.
>
> In case it was not clear (and I do not think it is to those who only
> read your description and haven't thought things through
> themselves), this concatenation is why the normalization by
> reordering is helpful. Imagine that a common ancestor had a file
> with a line with string "A" on it (I'll call such a line "line A"
> for brevity in the following) in its early part, and line X in its
> late part. And then you fork four branches that do these things:
>
> - AB: changes A to B
> - AC: changes A to C
> - XY: changes X to Y
> - XZ: changes X to Z
>
> Now, forking a branch ABAC off of branch AB and then merging AC into
> it, and forking a branch ACAB off of branch AC and then merging AB
> into it, would yield the conflict in a different order. The former
> would say "A became B or C, what now?" while the latter would say "A
> became C or B, what now?"
>
> But the act of merging AC into ABAC and resolving the conflict to
> leave line D means that you declare:
>
> After examining what branches AB and AC did, I believe that
> making line A into line D is the best thing to do that is
> compatible with what AB and AC wanted to do.
>
> So the conflict we would see when merging AB into ACAB should be
> resolved the same way---it is the resolution that is in line with
> that declaration.
>
> Imagine that similarly you had previously forked branch XYXZ from
> XY, merged XZ into it, and resolved "X became Y or Z" into "X became
> W".
>
> Now, if you forked a branch ABXY from AB and then merged XY, then
> ABXY would have line B in its early part and line Y in its later
> part. Such a merge would be quite clean. We can construct
> 4 combinations using these four branches ((AB, AC) x (XY, XZ)).
>
> Merging ABXY and ACXZ would make "an early A became B or C, a late X
> became Y or Z" conflict, while merging ACXY and ABXZ would make "an
> early A became C or B, a late X became Y or Z". We can see there
> are 4 combinations of ("B or C", "C or B") x ("X or Y", "Y or X").
>
> By sorting, we can give the conflict its canonical name, namely, "an
> early part became B or C, a late part becames X or Y", and whenever
> any of these four patterns appear, we can get to the same conflict
> and resolution that we saw earlier. Without the sorting, we will
> have to somehow find a previous resolution from combinatorial
> explosion ;-)
Thanks for the in depth explanation! I'll incorporate this into the
document.
> These days post ec34a8b1 ("Merge branch 'jc/rerere-multi'",
> 2016-05-23), the conflict ID can safely collide, i.e. hash
> collisions that drops completely different conflicts and their
> resolutions into the same .git/rr-cache/$id directory will not
> interfere with proper operation of the system, thanks to that
> rerere-multi topic that allows us to store multiple preimage
> conflicts that happens to share the same conflict ID with their
> corresponding postimage resolutions.
>
> In theory, we *should* be able to stub out the SHA-1 computation and
> give every conflict the same ID and rerere should still operate
> correctly, even though I haven't tried it yet myself.
I gave this a quick try, and the test suite seems to pass with the
hash computation giving the same ID to all conflicts.
