Hi,
On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 4:55 AM Kyle Zhao via GitGitGadget
<gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> From: Kyle Zhao <kylezhao@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> This patch will give our callers more flexibility to use `git merge-tree`,
> such as:
>
> git merge-tree --write-tree --merge-base=branch^ HEAD branch
>
> It would cherry-pick the commit at the tip of the branch on top of the
> current commit even if the repository is bare.
Perhaps just "This does a merge of HEAD and branch, but uses branch^
as the merge-base."
Also, given that both Junio and I thought a positional argument might
be better, it might be worth calling out that the reason for using an
option flag instead of a positional argument is to allow additional
commits passed to merge-tree to be handled via an octopus merge in the
future.
> Signed-off-by: Kyle Zhao <kylezhao@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> merge-tree: allow specifying a base commit when --write-tree is passed
>
> Thanks for Elijah's work. I'm very excited that merge-ort is integrated
> into the git merge-tree, which means that we can use merge-ort in bare
> repositories to optimize merge performance.
>
> In this patch, I introduce a new --merge-base=<commit> option to allow
> callers to specify a merge-base for the merge. This may allow users to
> implement git cherry-pick and git rebase in bare repositories with git
> merge-tree cmd.
>
> Changes since v1:
>
> * Changed merge_incore_nonrecursive() to merge_incore_recursive() when
> merge-base is specified.
I think you mean the other way around (using
merge_incore_nonrecursive() instead of merge_incore_recursive() when
merge-base is specified).
> + if (o->base_commit) {
> + struct tree *base_tree, *parent1_tree, *parent2_tree;
> +
> + opt.ancestor = "specified merge base";
It is a specified merge base, but that won't help the user much when
they get conflict markers if they attempt to investigate them. Since
the specified merge base is a commit the user will know, and in fact
one they named on the command line, we should use that name. So, I'd
expect this to be set to o->merge_base.
> @@ -544,8 +561,14 @@ int cmd_merge_tree(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> usage_with_options(merge_tree_usage, mt_options);
>
> /* Do the relevant type of merge */
> - if (o.mode == MODE_REAL)
> + if (o.mode == MODE_REAL) {
> + if (merge_base) {
> + o.base_commit = lookup_commit_reference_by_name(merge_base);
> + if (!o.base_commit)
> + die(_("could not lookup commit %s"), merge_base);
> + }
Personally, I think of the code before "/* Do the relevant type of
merge */" as a continuation of option parsing (i.e. sanity checking
arguments and determining defaults and whatnot), and I think the last
five lines above are more option parsing. From that angle, I think
it'd make sense to move these lines out above this block (before or
after determining o.mode).
But this may well just be personal preference; what you have certainly works.
> return real_merge(&o, argv[0], argv[1], prefix);
> + }
> else
> return trivial_merge(argv[0], argv[1], argv[2]);
> }
> diff --git a/t/t4301-merge-tree-write-tree.sh b/t/t4301-merge-tree-write-tree.sh
> index 013b77144bd..64bfe6f4a41 100755
> --- a/t/t4301-merge-tree-write-tree.sh
> +++ b/t/t4301-merge-tree-write-tree.sh
> @@ -819,4 +819,27 @@ test_expect_success SANITY 'merge-ort fails gracefully in a read-only repository
> test_must_fail git -C read-only merge-tree side1 side2
> '
>
> +test_expect_success 'specify merge-base as parent of branch2' '
> + # Setup
> + git init base-b2-p && (
> + cd base-b2-p &&
> + test_commit c1 file1 &&
> + test_commit c2 file2 &&
> + test_commit c3 file3
Much simpler. :-)
> + ) &&
> + # Testing
> + (
> + cd base-b2-p &&
> + TREE_OID=$(git merge-tree --write-tree --merge-base=c2 c1 c3) &&
> +
> + q_to_tab <<-EOF >expect &&
> + 100644 blob $(git rev-parse c1:file1)Qfile1
> + 100644 blob $(git rev-parse c3:file3)Qfile3
> + EOF
> +
> + git ls-tree $TREE_OID >actual &&
> + test_cmp expect actual
In particular, you are testing here that file2 does NOT appear despite
the fact that it was part of c3. That makes sense, but I'm not sure
casual readers of this code would catch that. It might be worth
adding a comment to make it easier to follow for future test readers.
> + )
> +'
> +
> test_done
>
> base-commit: 5af5e54106e20f65c913550c80aec3186b859e9b
This should be rebased on top of en/merge-tree-sequence. Then, you
need to either figure out how to modify the new --stdin flag to also
accept a specified merge base in a way that permits future handling of
octopus merges (it looks like Junio might have a good suggestion
elsewhere in this thread), or else explicitly call out in the commit
message why specified merge base support is only being added when
--stdin is not specified.
