Excerpts from Elijah Newren's message of December 2, 2021 6:58 pm: > Hi, > > On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 11:08 AM Alex Xu (Hello71) <alex_y_xu@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> After upgrading to git 2.34.1, I tried to rebase [0] onto [1], but >> encountered "strange" conflict results. >> >> git rebase -s recursive main produces [[RECURSIVE]]. It is roughly what >> I expected to be output. If I take all the changes from the upper >> section of the conflict, my changes will be effectively undone. If I >> take all the changes from the lower section, then the upstream changes >> will be undone. > > In general, this does not work. The only time it can work is if every > region of the code considered by the three-way content merge ended up > with conflicts. (If any of those regions had automatically resolvable > changes, then after taking just the upper section(s) or just the lower > section(s) of each conflict would still result in a file that is a > mixture of changes from both sides due to the automatically resolvable > chunks that the merge already handled.) > >> On the other hand, running git rebase -s ort main produces [[ORT]]. I am >> unsure if it is wrong, strictly speaking, but it is certainly unexpected >> and difficult for me to resolve. Selecting the upper section of the >> conflict does erase my changes, as before, but selecting the lower >> section results in syntactically incorrect code (foreach is ended by >> endif). The diff3 output makes even less sense to me. > > The output from using ort is identical to that obtained by > > git rebase -s recursive -Xdiff-algorithm=histogram ... > > on your testcase; i.e. this is due to a difference between the > histogram and myers diff algorithms. > (recursive defaults to using myers diff; ort uses histogram diff.) [ ... ] > Does that help explain things? Hm, I did try both default and patience and it didn't make a difference. git rebase -s recursive -Xdiff-algorithm=histogram master does produce the same result as ort though. I probably should have tried that first. Thanks for the explanation though, that's very helpful! Cheers, Alex.
