Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> writes: > Hi Sergey, > > On Wed, 7 Mar 2018, Sergey Organov wrote: > >> Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> writes: >> >> > On Tue, 6 Mar 2018, Phillip Wood wrote: >> > >> >> On 03/03/18 00:29, Igor Djordjevic wrote: >> >> > >> >> > On 02/03/2018 12:31, Phillip Wood wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> Thinking about it overnight, I now suspect that original proposal >> >> >>> had a mistake in the final merge step. I think that what you did is >> >> >>> a way to fix it, and I want to try to figure what exactly was wrong >> >> >>> in the original proposal and to find simpler way of doing it right. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> The likely solution is to use original UM as a merge-base for final >> >> >>> 3-way merge of U1' and U2', but I'm not sure yet. Sounds pretty >> >> >>> natural though, as that's exactly UM from which both U1' and U2' >> >> >>> have diverged due to rebasing and other history editing. >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi Sergey, I've been following this discussion from the sidelines, >> >> >> though I haven't had time to study all the posts in this thread in >> >> >> detail. I wonder if it would be helpful to think of rebasing a merge >> >> >> as merging the changes in the parents due to the rebase back into the >> >> >> original merge. So for a merge M with parents A B C that are rebased >> >> >> to A' B' C' the rebased merge M' would be constructed by (ignoring >> >> >> shell quoting issues) >> >> >> >> >> >> git checkout --detach M >> >> >> git merge-recursive A -- M A' >> >> >> tree=$(git write-tree) >> >> >> git merge-recursive B -- $tree B' >> >> >> tree=$(git write-tree) >> >> >> git merge-recursive C -- $tree C' >> >> >> tree=$(git write-tree) >> >> >> M'=$(git log --pretty=%B -1 M | git commit-tree -pA' -pB' -pC') >> >> >> >> >> >> This should pull in all the changes from the parents while preserving >> >> >> any evil conflict resolution in the original merge. It superficially >> >> >> reminds me of incremental merging [1] but it's so long since I looked >> >> >> at >> >> >> that I'm not sure if there are any significant similarities. >> >> >> >> >> >> [1] https://github.com/mhagger/git-imerge >> >> > >> >> > Interesting, from quick test[3], this seems to produce the same >> >> > result as that other test I previously provided[2], where temporary >> >> > commits U1' and U2' are finally merged with original M as a base :) >> >> > >> >> > Just that this looks like even more straight-forward approach...? >> >> > >> >> > The only thing I wonder of here is how would we check if the >> >> > "rebased" merge M' was "clean", or should we stop for user amendment? >> >> > With that other approach Sergey described, we have U1'==U2' to test >> >> > with. >> >> >> >> I think (though I haven't rigorously proved to myself) that in the >> >> absence of conflicts this scheme has well defined semantics (the merges >> >> can be commuted), so the result should be predicable from the users >> >> point of view so maybe it could just offer an option to stop. >> > >> > I am not so sure that the result is independent of the order of the >> > merges. In other words, I am not necessarily certain that it is impossible >> > to concoct A,A',B,B' commits where merging B'/B before A'/A has a >> > different result than merging A'/A before B'/B. >> > >> > Remember, when constructing counter-examples to hypotheses, those >> > counter-examples do not really *have* to make sense on their own. For >> > example, A' could introduce *completely different* changes from A, and the >> > same is true for B' and B. >> > >> > I could imagine, for example, that using a ton of consecutive empty lines, >> > and using patches that insert something into these empty lines (and are >> > thusly inherently ambiguous when said set of empty lines has changed), >> > could even introduce a merge conflict in one order, but no conflict in the >> > other. >> > >> > Even so, I think that merging in the order of the parents makes the most >> > sense, and that using that strategy makes sense, too, because you really >> > have to try hard to make it fail. >> >> Alternatively, consider to adopt the original approach that has none of >> these issues as it uses exactly the same method for rebasing merge >> commits that you are already using for rebasing simple commits, not to >> mention the advantage of the built-in consistency check. > > Surely I misunderstand? > > How can your approach -- which relies *very much* on having the original > parent commits -- not *require* that consistency check?
I don't understand what you mean, sorry. Could you please point me to the *require* you talk about in the original proposal? > What would your approach (that still has no satisfyingly trivial > explanation, in my mind) Here is one-liner: rebase sides of the merge commit and then 3-way merge them, using original merge commit as merge base. > do if somebody edited a `merge` command and let it merge a completely > unrelated commit? Don't see a problem, sorry. The method should still work, provided you have original merge commit and two new parents for the new merge. You rebase sides of original merge to the new parents, then 3-way merge the results using original merge as base. Once again, if you can rebase simple commit, the method allows to rebase the merge either. -- Sergey
