Re: [Question]: Question about "cherry-pick" internal

["Wang, Lei" <lei4.wang@intel.com>]

You solved my problem, many thanks!

BR,
Lei

On 8/8/2022 12:48 AM, Chris Torek wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 6:42 PM Wang, Lei <lei4.wang@intel.com> wrote:
>> I heard that cherry-pick is just a kind of merge, the difference between
>> it and the traditional merge is that it treats the parent commit of the
>> commit you want to cherry-pick as the merge-base ...
> This is indeed the case.
>
>> [During merging:] If the [two] diff[s] modified the same
>> line, then a conflict occurs.
> This is also true—but it's not the whole story.
>
>> If the above is true, but why when I cherry-picked a commit, a conflict
>> occurs even the 2 diffs didn't modify the same line, they modified the
>> two consecutive lines (line n and line n + 1), so what can be the
>> potential reason for this?
> In any merge, if the two sides modify *adjacent* lines—as is the
> case here—that, too, is considered a conflict (at least Git considers
> it as one; not all merge algorithms do that).
>
> Note that if the two diffs modify the same line(s) in the *same way*—
> e.g., both add the same text or delete the same text—Git will take
> only *one copy* of the change, without calling it a conflict. In some
> cases this may be incorrect: consider. e.g., merging the debits and
> credits in a series of accounting records, where the dollar amounts
> are identical, but the transactions are different.  If Alice spent $5
> and Bob spent $5, the correct result is not that "$5 total was spent"
> but rather $10.
>
> Still, for the kinds of tasks *Git* is asked to merge, this is normally
> the correct result, so it is the result Git produces.
>
> Git is a tool—or rather, a set of tools—and its automated work is
> never a substitute for expert evaluation.  You, the user, must do
> some work here as well, to make sure that what Git did is in fact
> correct for your particular situation.
>
> Chris