Miklos Vajna <vmiklos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 02:05:42AM -0700, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> [On Hold]
>> (...)
>> * mv/merge-recursive (Tue Aug 12 22:14:00 2008 +0200) 3 commits
>> - Make builtin-revert.c use merge_recursive_generic()
>> - merge-recursive.c: Add more generic merge_recursive_generic()
>> - Split out merge_recursive() to merge-recursive.c
>>
>> I do not think builtlin-revert should use "recursive", but these patches
>> give a good starting point to separate the bulk of the "rename-aware
>> three-way merge" into library form.
>
> I wanted to send a patch that makes builtin-merge use the new
> merge_recursive_setup(), but then I was not able to decide to use
> merge_recursive_generic() or not.
I think git-merge and git-merge-recursive should be the only two that
actually trigger the "recursive" behaviour. Everybody else should be
using non-recursive one, and that non-recursive one can be shared by the
one that is recursive.
Here is how the callchain looks like with your variant.
cmd_merge_recursive()
-> merge_recursive_setup()
-> merge_recursive_generic()
-> merge_recursive()
-> merge_recursive()
-> merge_trees()
The merge_recursive() is the "recursive" one. The workhorse that is not
recursive is merge_trees().
Since the latter is what everybody else ("checkout -m", "revert",
"cherry-pick", "am -3", "stash apply") should be using, I think it is
pretty much up to "git-merge" and "git-merge-recursive" implementations
how the caller of merge_recursive() function is structured. I suspect
that you would not need two separate functions, _setup() and _generic(),
for these two codepaths, but I didn't look closely.
And make_virtual_commit() should become static inside merge_recursive.c;
use of these fake commits is strictly an internal implementation issue of
how merge_recursive() function works and does not concern the caller, does
it?
By the way, the calling convention of merge_recursive_generic() looks
confusing (even though by the above reasoning it does not matter very much
outside "git-merge" and "git-merge-recursive"). Why does it take textual
object names for bases but binary object names for head and next?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
