From: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
To: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Cc: Git Mailing List <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: RFC: Merge-related plans
Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 11:19:07 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGZ79ka39xbbm_koyFeEizggoDBqKuwgmGwRBZJnBc13aOWZag@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABPp-BFQJZHfCJZ1qvhvVcMd-_sOfi0Fkm5PexEwzzN+Zw2akw@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 1:48 PM, Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I have some merge-related plans (and work in progress) that I'd like
> to get some feedback on in order to find what order would be best to
> address things in, if there are special steps I should take while
> approaching some of the bigger items, and even if folks disagree with
> any of the plans.
>
>
> Currently, I would like to:
>
> A) Fix cases where directory rename detection does not work with
> rebase/am due to how they call merge-recursive.
>
> Notes: Could just wait for D & E to land before fixing.
> Alternatively, email RFC to list now explaining issues and how the
> fix has performance implications; poll for opinions on whether to
> fix before or after D.
>
> B) Implement a remerge-diff ability (compare a merge commit to what an
> "automatic merge" would look like)[1].
>
> Notes: Possibly for cherry-picks and reverts too. Depends on C &
> E.
>
> C) Modify/extend how path-based and mode-based conflicts are
> communicated to the user.
>
> Notes: Particularly important as a mechanism for handling
> challenges[2] with implementing the remerge-diff ability. Need to
> send RFC to list with ideas to get feedback.
>
> D) Improve merge performance.
>
> Notes: Includes 4-5 specific optimizations[5], some of which I
> expect to be somewhat invasive and thus may make more sense to just
> make part of the new merge strategy implemented in E. Biggest
> optimization depends on F.
>
> E) Write a new merge strategy meant to replace merge-recursive.
>
> Notes: Suggested by Junio[3][4]. Depends on F & G.
>
> F) Make file collision conflict types more consistent.
>
> Notes: Specifically, make rename/rename(2to1) & rename/add
> conflicts behave more like add/add[6][7]. Depends on part of G.
> Would prefer H to be accepted first.
>
> G) Improve merge-related portion of testsuite.
>
> Notes: Intended to help test new merge strategy with more
> confidence. Will include approximately a dozen edge and corner
> cases where merge-recursive currently falls short. Started at [8];
> see also [9].
Most items forward-reference "Depends on (<later letter>) up to here;
(H) seems independent, but might be a good first start.
(G) [8] is queued as origin/en/merge-recursive-tests, or do you mean
to expand (G) into a mini-framework of merge-testing? i.e. run the
mini test framework multiple times, each using a different
merge strategy, similar to submodule tests, e.g. see
t/lib-submodule-update.sh and one of its users, t1013.
> H) Miscellaneous code cleanups irritating me while working on other
> changes[10].
>
>
> My current plan was to work roughly in reverse, from H to A. Some questions:
>
> * Does any of this look objectionable?
Going in order A-H seems slightly out-of-order to me, I'd think (H) and (G)
would go first;
(B) sounds like an independent feature, which could go in parallel?
> * Should I post RFC questions on A and C earlier?
I would think so, it is easier to give feedback on code, I would think.
> * Should I split D and G? (Current plan was to keep D together, but
> split G into five short slightly inter-dependent topics)
I would have expected to have tests (G) as a companion of (A) or (C)
rather than (D), as performance improvements would keep the test suite
unchanged?
> * E is kind of big. Are there any specific things folks would like to see
> with how that is handled?
How much abstraction can be done ahead of time such that there is an
interface/API where you just plug in a new merge strategy and do not
need to duplicate a lot of code/tests?
Stefan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-05-29 18:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-05-28 20:48 RFC: Merge-related plans Elijah Newren
2018-05-29 18:19 ` Stefan Beller [this message]
2018-05-29 21:03 ` Elijah Newren
2018-05-29 22:12 ` Stefan Beller
2018-05-30 4:21 ` Elijah Newren
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:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAGZ79ka39xbbm_koyFeEizggoDBqKuwgmGwRBZJnBc13aOWZag@mail.gmail.com \
--to=sbeller@google.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=newren@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* 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
https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git
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).