Elijah Newren wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 11:16 AM Victoria Dye via GitGitGadget
> <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> From: Victoria Dye <vdye@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Replace the hardcoded 'merge_recursive()' function used by the
>> 'merge_recursive_generic()' with a caller-specific merge function. This will
>> allow us to use 'merge_ort_recursive()' (and therefore avoid the index
>> expansion of 'merge_recursive()') in commands that perform merges with
>> 'merge_recursive_generic()', such as 'git stash pop'.
>>
>> Note that this patch is strictly a refactor; all callers still use
>> 'merge_recursive()', and any changing to 'merge_ort_recursive()' will be
>> done in a later commit.
>
> I'm not sure if we can gut merge_recursive_generic(), but I don't
> think stash should use it...
>
>> Signed-off-by: Victoria Dye <vdye@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> builtin/am.c | 2 +-
>> builtin/merge-recursive.c | 2 +-
>> builtin/stash.c | 2 +-
>> merge-ort.c | 3 ++-
>> merge-recursive.c | 4 ++--
>> merge-recursive.h | 9 ++++++++-
>> 6 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/builtin/am.c b/builtin/am.c
>> index 0f4111bafa0..6d01185d122 100644
>> --- a/builtin/am.c
>> +++ b/builtin/am.c
>> @@ -1614,7 +1614,7 @@ static int fall_back_threeway(const struct am_state *state, const char *index_pa
>> if (state->quiet)
>> o.verbosity = 0;
>>
>> - if (merge_recursive_generic(&o, &our_tree, &their_tree, 1, bases, &result)) {
>> + if (merge_recursive_generic(&o, &our_tree, &their_tree, 1, bases, merge_recursive, &result)) {
>> repo_rerere(the_repository, state->allow_rerere_autoupdate);
>> free(their_tree_name);
>> return error(_("Failed to merge in the changes."));
>> diff --git a/builtin/merge-recursive.c b/builtin/merge-recursive.c
>> index b9acbf5d342..687ed1e527b 100644
>> --- a/builtin/merge-recursive.c
>> +++ b/builtin/merge-recursive.c
>> @@ -81,7 +81,7 @@ int cmd_merge_recursive(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
>> if (o.verbosity >= 3)
>> printf(_("Merging %s with %s\n"), o.branch1, o.branch2);
>>
>> - failed = merge_recursive_generic(&o, &h1, &h2, bases_count, bases, &result);
>> + failed = merge_recursive_generic(&o, &h1, &h2, bases_count, bases, merge_recursive, &result);
>>
>> free(better1);
>> free(better2);
>> diff --git a/builtin/stash.c b/builtin/stash.c
>> index 1bfba532044..16171eb1dab 100644
>> --- a/builtin/stash.c
>> +++ b/builtin/stash.c
>> @@ -554,7 +554,7 @@ static int do_apply_stash(const char *prefix, struct stash_info *info,
>> bases[0] = &info->b_tree;
>>
>> ret = merge_recursive_generic(&o, &c_tree, &info->w_tree, 1, bases,
>> - &result);
>> + merge_recursive, &result);
>> if (ret) {
>> rerere(0);
>>
>> diff --git a/merge-ort.c b/merge-ort.c
>> index 8545354dafd..4bccdfcf355 100644
>> --- a/merge-ort.c
>> +++ b/merge-ort.c
>> @@ -4737,7 +4737,8 @@ void merge_incore_recursive(struct merge_options *opt,
>> trace2_region_enter("merge", "incore_recursive", opt->repo);
>>
>> /* We set the ancestor label based on the merge_bases */
>> - assert(opt->ancestor == NULL);
>> + assert(opt->ancestor == NULL ||
>> + !strcmp(opt->ancestor, "constructed merge base"));
>
> ...and here's one of the reasons why. The fact that
> merge_recursive_generic() uses this string when exactly one merge base
> is passed is something that is only correct for git-am; it is wrong
> and actively misleading for git-stash since it has a real merge base
> that is not internally constructed by the operation using the merge
> machinery. (The merge base it uses is something like $STASH^1, IIRC.)
>
> In fact, this was half the coin around why merge_recursive_generic()
> wasn't converted when merge-ort was written; see
> https://lore.kernel.org/git/CABPp-BHW61zA+MefvWK47iVZKY97rxc2XZ-NjXzuJxEhgSLqUw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> and https://lore.kernel.org/git/CABPp-BFr=1iVY739cfh-1Hp82x-Mny-k4y0f3zZ_YuP3PxiGfQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> for more details.
>
All of that makes sense, thanks for the context!
> The use of merge_recursive_generic() by stash is also a bit weird;
> most of the time, stash is going to have actual commits instead of
> just trees. But stash dereferences those commits to trees, passes
> them to merge_recursive_generic(), and then merge_recursive_generic()
> has to create fake commits containing those trees, because the merge
> machinery wants commits. It feels a bit like a Rube Goldberg machine.
> Also, stash also always calls merge_recursive_generic() with exactly
> one merge base, which together with having real commits both kind of
> defeat the need for "generic". I think stash should just use
> merge_trees()/merge_incore_nonrecursive() directly (much as
> sequencer.c does). The only special case to worry about with stash is
> when c_tree != HEAD^{tree}, i.e. when applying changes on top of
> already present changes instead of just on top of HEAD. But in that
> case, I think stash should be the thing to create a fake commit rather
> than invoking some wrapper that will create fake commits for all three
> trees.
>
I'm a bit confused about this. The non-recursive merge functions
('merge_trees()' & 'merge_ort_nonrecursive()' or the lower-level
'merge_incore_nonrecursive()') merge trees, not commits, so performing a
non-recursive merge requires dereferencing commits to trees anyway. I think
I agree with your other message [1] that the 'stash' merge doesn't need to
merge recursively, but that would mean it also doesn't use the commits
*directly* (i.e., as arguments in the merge).
Apologies if I'm missing something obvious, but I want to make sure I
understand your suggestion.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/CABPp-BFANwZn73w8zrVySB7mh0bQQBdGJjBuSJy50UOeyYT6aA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
>> trace2_region_enter("merge", "merge_start", opt->repo);
>> merge_start(opt, result);
>> diff --git a/merge-recursive.c b/merge-recursive.c
>> index 1ee6364e8b1..2088f5c5fb3 100644
>> --- a/merge-recursive.c
>> +++ b/merge-recursive.c
>> @@ -3806,6 +3806,7 @@ int merge_recursive_generic(struct merge_options *opt,
>> const struct object_id *merge,
>> int num_merge_bases,
>> const struct object_id **merge_bases,
>> + recursive_merge_fn_t merge_fn,
>> struct commit **result)
>> {
>> int clean;
>> @@ -3829,8 +3830,7 @@ int merge_recursive_generic(struct merge_options *opt,
>> }
>>
>> repo_hold_locked_index(opt->repo, &lock, LOCK_DIE_ON_ERROR);
>> - clean = merge_recursive(opt, head_commit, next_commit, ca,
>> - result);
>> + clean = merge_fn(opt, head_commit, next_commit, ca, result);
>> if (clean < 0) {
>> rollback_lock_file(&lock);
>> return clean;
>> diff --git a/merge-recursive.h b/merge-recursive.h
>> index b88000e3c25..6a21f2da538 100644
>> --- a/merge-recursive.h
>> +++ b/merge-recursive.h
>> @@ -53,6 +53,12 @@ struct merge_options {
>> struct merge_options_internal *priv;
>> };
>>
>> +typedef int (*recursive_merge_fn_t)(struct merge_options *opt,
>> + struct commit *h1,
>> + struct commit *h2,
>> + struct commit_list *merge_bases,
>> + struct commit **result);
>> +
>> void init_merge_options(struct merge_options *opt, struct repository *repo);
>>
>> /* parse the option in s and update the relevant field of opt */
>> @@ -105,7 +111,7 @@ int merge_recursive(struct merge_options *opt,
>>
>> /*
>> * merge_recursive_generic can operate on trees instead of commits, by
>> - * wrapping the trees into virtual commits, and calling merge_recursive().
>> + * wrapping the trees into virtual commits, and calling the provided merge_fn.
>> * It also writes out the in-memory index to disk if the merge is successful.
>> *
>> * Outputs:
>> @@ -120,6 +126,7 @@ int merge_recursive_generic(struct merge_options *opt,
>> const struct object_id *merge,
>> int num_merge_bases,
>> const struct object_id **merge_bases,
>> + recursive_merge_fn_t merge_fn,
>> struct commit **result);
>>
>> #endif
>> --
>> gitgitgadget
