Jakub Narebski wrote:
Dnia wtorek 16. września 2008 02:20, Junio C Hamano napisał:
Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
Thomas Rast <trast@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
The merge says
Trying simple merge with 5b3e4bb1c2d88d6967fb575729fbfc86df5eaec9
Simple merge did not work, trying automatic merge.
Auto-merging foo
ERROR: Merge conflict in foo
fatal: merge program failed
Automated merge did not work.
Should not be doing an Octopus.
Merge with strategy octopus failed.
...
Read the second from the last line of what you were told by git. Run "git
reset --hard" after that, perhaps.
The problem, as far as I understand it, is not that octopus merge fails.
The problem is that it fails halfway, and it leaves working are in
inconsistent state: git-status output with its "unmerged" suggests that
we are in the middle of the merge, but we are not.
By the way, there are three failure modes in Octopus.
(0) your index (not work tree) is dirty; this is not limited to octopus
merge but any merge will be refused;
IIRC the idea of stashing away changes, doing merge, and then unstashing
was shot down as encouraging bad workflows, and more often than not
leading only to mess in workdir and index.
(1) while it merges other heads one-by-one, it gets conflicts on an
earlier one, before it even attempts to merge all of them. Recording
the heads that it so far attempted to merge in MERGE_HEAD is wrong
(the result won't be an Octopus the end user wanted to carete), and
recording all the heads the user gave in MERGE_HEAD is even more
wrong (it hasn't even looked at the later heads yet, so there is no
way for the index or work tree to contain anything from them).
The above is hitting this case.
IMVHO the correct solution would be to rollback changes to the state
before attempting a merge. I'd rather 'octopus' did its thing as
transaction; contrary to ordinary merges if merge fails it doesn't
mean necessary that it is in the state of resolvable conflict, state
we can stop at. Perhaps (if it is still a shell script, doing git-stash
at beginning, and either dropping or popping the stash at the end;
or just saving old index if it is built-in).
BTW. does it mean that "git merge a b" might be not the same as
"git merge b a"?
No. Git merges all the sub-things together and then merges the result
of that jumble into the branch you're on.
Someone might have to correct me on that, but that's as far as I've
understood it.
--
Andreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@xxxxxx
OP5 AB www.op5.se
Tel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231
--
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
