From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-ASN: AS3215 2.6.0.0/16 X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.6 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,LIST_MIRROR_RECEIVED,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE shortcircuit=no autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::1:20]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 360C01F852 for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2022 06:08:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232326AbiBDGIU (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Feb 2022 01:08:20 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:45664 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229905AbiBDGIU (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Feb 2022 01:08:20 -0500 Received: from mail-ej1-x635.google.com (mail-ej1-x635.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::635]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DFB9FC061714 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2022 22:08:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ej1-x635.google.com with SMTP id k25so15963450ejp.5 for ; Thu, 03 Feb 2022 22:08:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=/3HPhhj09iZ2758Bq0XO+mj790fbP8mrX3nSiTVGLmg=; b=Md0/lJgtypwOroIXcwOpBerAdFzyeKYRT3iox47RhXmCNyzhHwSU2UiwBBTzDBanoP wI2J7xgGmMk4uNzkRFjTBsb5YcV+IZkTPh8FOKtoRJFi1d19viNGANY9ujzRi+vPkZ4Z DM5+7TMc7SrLS2cERr+bFtE+cuEupQRDmCtZ+DHeVnmO3m/GKYHLtpPAVba0iC0/QSwx bhyiM5zIg4pB9420cBBJrtsrw+rVlb3LeeXSIWyiWjjePEIWsGPqcPzCovCSgSquTGDe AZWX9tA+NhNYvN+vE8krxV+AhVcRBy3oBP0QjPqBwwoinXv2L+T0RJqwueREGNhWxH8H DWcg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=/3HPhhj09iZ2758Bq0XO+mj790fbP8mrX3nSiTVGLmg=; b=c/JOYFM/DuNRBBQIPO4lvkgAZD3Uji7l5lXuwHR0zwsVHkDW/ksPwJsAyrQRwmyTCm jL2rZRpDMRzh5I+qb2q8kac3Y1ygyNJUhQ3HHL1KfitMtv2Ex9D8Z23/aJUPZIsmhJem rHdbY2JrEioFaKQAMeIVlxSZefWQfzs5rRGTycS8yFQAwNkBhdLlug/5FNCDhj7buhEN oxdYegv2TIhbq4hzTbzg1b1a5biukAiDO0uyzXuALcoO69wYAYDqLRKACo/mFSOMmtZt r/6MdSwtgSXedKMzh+s66+PS8UOMEcIZR/dDcXd7kFAvJvOkEVoiVFmhf8C+q5Wlvrk3 qoyg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532LpYLRg26RKIAAXDrbPKZZTuIynY4luuHSdIPcRrOqvPI4sWC0 OEoa/pCWXLwnyNrAPmKVppQ+lA1atWv6QR0pjOA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyktdFWAGTbN3GhsnllkBwLNsUwIZx/7BiT/deG+/5lQbMjpZXI9wT/Cd6YMGRbGM8jPDl+qu/kYeDm2ApedNk= X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:60d6:: with SMTP id hv22mr1193210ejc.476.1643954898366; Thu, 03 Feb 2022 22:08:18 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <02c29f920d0d5fde6d85f7b86a69be92e3f0f34d.1643787281.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Elijah Newren Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2022 22:08:07 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/15] merge-tree: implement real merges To: Josh Steadmon , Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget , Git Mailing List , Christian Couder , Taylor Blau , Johannes Altmanninger , Ramsay Jones , Johannes Schindelin , Christian Couder , =?UTF-8?Q?Ren=C3=A9_Scharfe?= , =?UTF-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsCBCamFybWFzb24=?= , Elijah Newren , Johannes Sixt Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 8:48 PM Josh Steadmon wrote: > > On 2022.02.02 07:34, Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget wrote: [...] > > +USAGE NOTES > > +----------- > > + > > +git-merge-tree was written to be low-level plumbing, similar to > > +hash-object, mktree, commit-tree, update-ref, and mktag. Thus, it could > > +be used as a part of a series of steps such as > > + > > + NEWTREE=$(git merge-tree --write-tree $BRANCH1 $BRANCH2) > > + test $? -eq 0 || die "There were conflicts..." > > + NEWCOMMIT=$(git commit-tree $NEWTREE -p $BRANCH1 -p $BRANCH2) > > + git update-ref $BRANCH1 $NEWCOMMIT > > + > > +However, it does not quite fit into the same category of low-level > > +plumbing commands since the possibility of merge conflicts give it a > > +much higher chance of the command not succeeding. > > I found this final paragraph confusing. It seems to be hinting at some > conclusion it expects readers to make, but I haven't been able to figure > out what. Could this be made more explicit, or perhaps dropped > altogether? Yep, I'll drop it.