mailing list mirror (one of many)
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Elijah Newren <>
To: "Middelschulte, Leif" <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: git merge banch w/ different submodule revision
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 17:24:41 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>


On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 3:37 AM, Middelschulte, Leif
<> wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 26.04.2018, 17:19 -0700 schrieb Elijah Newren:
>> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 3:49 AM, Middelschulte, Leif
>> <> wrote:
>> > Problem case: Merge either branch into the other
>> >
>> > Expected behavior: Merge conflict.
>> >
>> > Actual behavior: Auto merge without conflicts.
>> >
>> > Note 1: A merge conflict does occur, if the sourced revisions do *not* have a linear history

Let me just note that I don't actually use submodules myself, and
rarely run across them, so as far as users expect submodules should
behave I may have to defer to others.  But it was particularly this
sentence of yours that caught my attention and got me to respond.  I
may have misunderstood which repository had the non-linear history,

>> But, there is some further smarts in that if either A or B point at
>> commits that contain the other in their history and both contain the
>> commit that O points at, then you can just do a fast-forward update to
>> the newest.

This particular paragraph, is relevant to your example; more details below.

>> You didn't tell us how the merge-base (cd5e1a5 from the diagram you
>> gave) differed in your example here between the two repositories.  In
>> fact, the non-linear case could have several merge-bases, in which
>> case they all become potentially relevant (as does their merge-bases
>> since at that point you'll trigger the recursive portion of
>> merge-recursive).  Giving us that info might help us point out what
>> happened, though if either the fast-forward logic comes into play or
>> the recursive logic gets in the mix, then we may need you to provide a
>> testcase (or access to the repo in question) in order to explain it
>> and/or determine if you've found a bug.
> I placed two reositories here:
> The access should be public w/o login.
> If you prefer the examples to be placed somewhere else, let me know.

So the only thing I see here is a single repository, which contains a
submodule with linear history.  (unless I was grabbing it wrong; I
just tried `git clone --recurse-submodules`)  Do you also have
an example with non-linear history demonstrating your claim that it
behaves differently, for comparison?

Anyway, in this case you had both branches updating the submodule to
something newer (to a fast-forward update of what it previously was),
but one side advanced it further than the other side did (in
particular, to what turned out to be a fast-forward update of what the
other branch used).  That means the whole fast-forwarding logic of
commit 68d03e4a6e44 ("Implement automatic fast-forward merge for
submodules", 2010-07-07)) came into play.

I would expect that a different example involving non-linear history
would behave the same, if both sides update the submodule in a fashion
that is just fast-forwarding and one commit contains the other in its
history.  I'm curious if you have a counter example.

  reply	other threads:[~2018-04-28  0:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-04-26 10:49 git merge banch w/ different submodule revision Middelschulte, Leif
2018-04-26 17:56 ` Stefan Beller
2018-04-26 21:46   ` Jacob Keller
2018-04-26 22:19     ` Stefan Beller
2018-04-30 17:02       ` Heiko Voigt
2018-05-02  7:30         ` Middelschulte, Leif
2018-05-03 16:42           ` Heiko Voigt
2018-05-04  8:29             ` Middelschulte, Leif
2018-05-04 10:18               ` Heiko Voigt
2018-05-04 14:43                 ` Elijah Newren
2018-05-07 14:23                   ` Middelschulte, Leif
2018-04-27  0:02     ` Elijah Newren
2018-04-27  0:19 ` Elijah Newren
2018-04-27 10:37   ` Middelschulte, Leif
2018-04-28  0:24     ` Elijah Newren [this message]
2018-04-28  7:22       ` Jacob Keller

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

  List information:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='' \ \ \ \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).