* [PATCH] Simplified merge logic
@ 2020-11-08 21:37 Seija K. via GitGitGadget
2020-11-09 23:17 ` Junio C Hamano
2020-11-17 21:54 ` [PATCH v2] Simplify " Seija K. via GitGitGadget
0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Seija K. via GitGitGadget @ 2020-11-08 21:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git; +Cc: pi1024e
From: pi1024e <pi1024e@github.com>
commit: Avoid extraneous boolean checking by simplifying the if statements.
Signed-off-by: Seija <pi1024e@github.com>
---
Simplified merge logic
The logic for the merging is somewhat confusing. So I simplified it to
be equivalent. I tested all my changes to ensure in practice they work.
The first thing I did was test out which branch would occur for every
possible value of
remoteheads->nextcommon->nextoption_commitBranchTTTATTFATFTATFFAFTTCFTFC
FFTBFFFAUsing this truth table, I was able to deduce that if the second
branch ran, the if statement for the first branch was false. Taking the
inverse, it was then found many of the checks were redundant, so the if
statement was rewritten to have each branch run under the same exact
conditions, except each value is evaluated as little as possible.
I hope you can approve of this and show me how to send it.
Thank you.
Published-As: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-git-911%2Fpi1024e%2Fmerge-cleanup-v1
Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-git-911/pi1024e/merge-cleanup-v1
Pull-Request: https://github.com/git/git/pull/911
builtin/merge.c | 85 ++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------------
1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 47 deletions(-)
diff --git a/builtin/merge.c b/builtin/merge.c
index 4c133402a6..9664da6031 100644
--- a/builtin/merge.c
+++ b/builtin/merge.c
@@ -853,9 +853,8 @@ static void prepare_to_commit(struct commit_list *remoteheads)
if (run_commit_hook(0 < option_edit, get_index_file(), "prepare-commit-msg",
git_path_merge_msg(the_repository), "merge", NULL))
abort_commit(remoteheads, NULL);
- if (0 < option_edit) {
- if (launch_editor(git_path_merge_msg(the_repository), NULL, NULL))
- abort_commit(remoteheads, NULL);
+ if (0 < option_edit && launch_editor(git_path_merge_msg(the_repository), NULL, NULL)) {
+ abort_commit(remoteheads, NULL);
}
if (!no_verify && run_commit_hook(0 < option_edit, get_index_file(),
@@ -1213,7 +1212,7 @@ static int merging_a_throwaway_tag(struct commit *commit)
if (!merge_remote_util(commit) ||
!merge_remote_util(commit)->obj ||
merge_remote_util(commit)->obj->type != OBJ_TAG)
- return is_throwaway_tag;
+ return 0;
/*
* Now we know we are merging a tag object. Are we downstream
@@ -1459,13 +1458,12 @@ int cmd_merge(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
fast_forward = FF_NO;
}
- if (!use_strategies) {
- if (!remoteheads)
- ; /* already up-to-date */
- else if (!remoteheads->next)
- add_strategies(pull_twohead, DEFAULT_TWOHEAD);
- else
+ if (!use_strategies && remoteheads) {
+ /* not up-to-date */
+ if (remoteheads->next)
add_strategies(pull_octopus, DEFAULT_OCTOPUS);
+ else
+ add_strategies(pull_twohead, DEFAULT_TWOHEAD);
}
for (i = 0; i < use_strategies_nr; i++) {
@@ -1475,15 +1473,15 @@ int cmd_merge(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
allow_trivial = 0;
}
- if (!remoteheads)
- ; /* already up-to-date */
- else if (!remoteheads->next)
- common = get_merge_bases(head_commit, remoteheads->item);
- else {
- struct commit_list *list = remoteheads;
- commit_list_insert(head_commit, &list);
- common = get_octopus_merge_bases(list);
- free(list);
+ if (remoteheads) {
+ /* not up-to-date */
+ if (remoteheads->next) {
+ struct commit_list *list = remoteheads;
+ commit_list_insert(head_commit, &list);
+ common = get_octopus_merge_bases(list);
+ free(list);
+ } else
+ common = get_merge_bases(head_commit, remoteheads->item);
}
update_ref("updating ORIG_HEAD", "ORIG_HEAD",
@@ -1542,31 +1540,7 @@ int cmd_merge(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
finish(head_commit, remoteheads, &commit->object.oid, msg.buf);
remove_merge_branch_state(the_repository);
goto done;
- } else if (!remoteheads->next && common->next)
- ;
- /*
- * We are not doing octopus and not fast-forward. Need
- * a real merge.
- */
- else if (!remoteheads->next && !common->next && option_commit) {
- /*
- * We are not doing octopus, not fast-forward, and have
- * only one common.
- */
- refresh_cache(REFRESH_QUIET);
- if (allow_trivial && fast_forward != FF_ONLY) {
- /* See if it is really trivial. */
- git_committer_info(IDENT_STRICT);
- printf(_("Trying really trivial in-index merge...\n"));
- if (!read_tree_trivial(&common->item->object.oid,
- &head_commit->object.oid,
- &remoteheads->item->object.oid)) {
- ret = merge_trivial(head_commit, remoteheads);
- goto done;
- }
- printf(_("Nope.\n"));
- }
- } else {
+ } else if (remoteheads->next || (!common->next && !option_commit)) {
/*
* An octopus. If we can reach all the remote we are up
* to date.
@@ -1592,6 +1566,24 @@ int cmd_merge(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
finish_up_to_date(_("Already up to date. Yeeah!"));
goto done;
}
+ } else if (!common->next) {
+ /*
+ * We are not doing octopus, not fast-forward, and have
+ * only one common.
+ */
+ refresh_cache(REFRESH_QUIET);
+ if (allow_trivial && fast_forward != FF_ONLY) {
+ /* See if it is really trivial. */
+ git_committer_info(IDENT_STRICT);
+ printf(_("Trying really trivial in-index merge...\n"));
+ if (!read_tree_trivial(&common->item->object.oid,
+ &head_commit->object.oid,
+ &remoteheads->item->object.oid)) {
+ ret = merge_trivial(head_commit, remoteheads);
+ goto done;
+ }
+ printf(_("Nope.\n"));
+ }
}
if (fast_forward == FF_ONLY)
@@ -1685,9 +1677,8 @@ int cmd_merge(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
use_strategies[0]->name);
ret = 2;
goto done;
- } else if (best_strategy == wt_strategy)
- ; /* We already have its result in the working tree. */
- else {
+ } else if (best_strategy != wt_strategy) {
+ /* We do not have its result in the working tree. */
printf(_("Rewinding the tree to pristine...\n"));
restore_state(&head_commit->object.oid, &stash);
printf(_("Using the %s to prepare resolving by hand.\n"),
base-commit: 7f7ebe054af6d831b999d6c2241b9227c4e4e08d
--
gitgitgadget
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] Simplified merge logic 2020-11-08 21:37 [PATCH] Simplified merge logic Seija K. via GitGitGadget @ 2020-11-09 23:17 ` Junio C Hamano 2020-11-17 21:54 ` [PATCH v2] Simplify " Seija K. via GitGitGadget 1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread From: Junio C Hamano @ 2020-11-09 23:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Seija K. via GitGitGadget; +Cc: git, pi1024e "Seija K. via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes: > From: pi1024e <pi1024e@github.com> > > commit: Avoid extraneous boolean checking by simplifying the if statements. > Signed-off-by: Seija <pi1024e@github.com> > --- Meh. Admittedly, readability is somewhat subjective, but a rewrite like if (condition) if (!condition) do_when_true(); do_when_false(); else ==> else do_when_false(); do_when_true(); while it may not be incorrect per-se needs more than a subjective "I think this is more readable" to justify the code churn. > diff --git a/builtin/merge.c b/builtin/merge.c > index 4c133402a6..9664da6031 100644 > --- a/builtin/merge.c > +++ b/builtin/merge.c > @@ -853,9 +853,8 @@ static void prepare_to_commit(struct commit_list *remoteheads) > if (run_commit_hook(0 < option_edit, get_index_file(), "prepare-commit-msg", > git_path_merge_msg(the_repository), "merge", NULL)) > abort_commit(remoteheads, NULL); > - if (0 < option_edit) { > - if (launch_editor(git_path_merge_msg(the_repository), NULL, NULL)) > - abort_commit(remoteheads, NULL); > + if (0 < option_edit && launch_editor(git_path_merge_msg(the_repository), NULL, NULL)) { > + abort_commit(remoteheads, NULL); > } This may reduce the number of lines, but personally I find that if (are we editing?) { if (run editor---did we fail?) abort(); } is much easier to read. And much more importantly, it would be much easier to extend later what hwppens when we decide to edit, than the new code proposed by this patch. > @@ -1213,7 +1212,7 @@ static int merging_a_throwaway_tag(struct commit *commit) > if (!merge_remote_util(commit) || > !merge_remote_util(commit)->obj || > merge_remote_util(commit)->obj->type != OBJ_TAG) > - return is_throwaway_tag; > + return 0; Likewise. If somebody _must_ touch this function to gain commit count without making the code harder to maintain, it may be an option to use "goto leave;" here and then create a "leave:" label before the other "return"---at least that may be worth considering, but not this---when everybody else in the function wants to maintain that the value in this variable is what is returned from the function. > @@ -1459,13 +1458,12 @@ int cmd_merge(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix) > fast_forward = FF_NO; > } > > - if (!use_strategies) { > - if (!remoteheads) > - ; /* already up-to-date */ > - else if (!remoteheads->next) > - add_strategies(pull_twohead, DEFAULT_TWOHEAD); > - else > + if (!use_strategies && remoteheads) { > + /* not up-to-date */ > + if (remoteheads->next) > add_strategies(pull_octopus, DEFAULT_OCTOPUS); > + else > + add_strategies(pull_twohead, DEFAULT_TWOHEAD); > } Likewise. if (do we have to choose strategies ourselves?) { ... depending on the case, choose strategy ... } is much easier to reason about than if (do we have to choose strategies ourselves?, oh by the way, don't forget that already up-to-date case we do not have to choose) { ... the remainder ... } and extend when we need to add something to do in the up-to-date case as long as the end-user did not specify which strategy to use in the future. The reduced line count alone is not a good yardstick to use when talking about code restructuring for readability and maintainability. Thanks. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v2] Simplify merge logic 2020-11-08 21:37 [PATCH] Simplified merge logic Seija K. via GitGitGadget 2020-11-09 23:17 ` Junio C Hamano @ 2020-11-17 21:54 ` Seija K. via GitGitGadget 2020-11-17 22:06 ` [PATCH v3] " Seija K. via GitGitGadget 1 sibling, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Seija K. via GitGitGadget @ 2020-11-17 21:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: git; +Cc: Seija K From: Seija K <pi1024e@github.com> commit: Avoid extraneous boolean checking by simplifying the if statements. This is so that the code can be clearer and avoid duplicate boolean checks. Changes since v1: Undid if statement combos as suggested by Junio C Hamano. The current logic for the merging is somewhat confusing. So I simplified said logic to be equivalent, but simpler. I tested all my changes to ensure in practice they work as well. First, I tested out which branch would occur for every possible value below: remoteheads->next | common->next | option_commit | Branch -- | -- | -- | -- T | T | T | A T | T | F | A T | F | T | A T | F | F | A F | T | T | C F | T | F | C F | F | T | B F | F | F | A Then, using this truth table, I was able to deduce that if the second branch ran, the if statement for the first branch would be false. Then, taking the inverse, I found that many of the checks were redundant, so I rewrote the if statements to have each branch run under the same exact conditions, except each value is evaluated as little as possible. I hope you find value in these changes. Thank you! Signed-off-by: Seija K. <pi1024e@github.com> --- Simplify merge logic This is so that the code can be clearer and avoid duplicate boolean checks. Changes since v1: Undid if statement combos as suggested by Junio C Hamano. The current logic for the merging is somewhat confusing. So I simplified said logic to be equivalent, but simpler. I tested all my changes to ensure in practice they work as well. First, I tested out which branch would occur for every possible value below: remoteheads->nextcommon->nextoption_commitBranchTTTATTFATFTATFFAFTTCFTFC FFTBFFFAThen, using this truth table, I was able to deduce that if the second branch ran, the if statement for the first branch would be false. Then, taking the inverse, I found that many of the checks were redundant, so I rewrote the if statements to have each branch run under the same exact conditions, except each value is evaluated as little as possible. I hope you find value in these changes. Thank you! Signed-off-by: Seija K. pi1024e@github.com [pi1024e@github.com] Published-As: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-git-911%2Fpi1024e%2Fmerge-cleanup-v2 Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-git-911/pi1024e/merge-cleanup-v2 Pull-Request: https://github.com/git/git/pull/911 Range-diff vs v1: 1: 9b333c9872 ! 1: dd1c4dd678 Simplified merge logic @@ ## Metadata ## -Author: pi1024e <pi1024e@github.com> +Author: Seija K <pi1024e@github.com> ## Commit message ## - Simplified merge logic + Simplify merge logic commit: Avoid extraneous boolean checking by simplifying the if statements. - Signed-off-by: Seija <pi1024e@github.com> + This is so that the code can be clearer and avoid duplicate boolean checks. + + Changes since v1: Undid if statement combos as suggested by Junio C Hamano. + + The current logic for the merging is somewhat confusing. + So I simplified said logic to be equivalent, but simpler. + I tested all my changes to ensure in practice they work as well. + + First, I tested out which branch would occur for every possible value below: + + remoteheads->next | common->next | option_commit | Branch + -- | -- | -- | -- + T | T | T | A + T | T | F | A + T | F | T | A + T | F | F | A + F | T | T | C + F | T | F | C + F | F | T | B + F | F | F | A + + Then, using this truth table, I was able to deduce that if the second branch ran, + the if statement for the first branch would be false. + + Then, taking the inverse, I found that many of the checks were redundant, + so I rewrote the if statements to have each branch run under the same exact conditions, + except each value is evaluated as little as possible. + + I hope you find value in these changes. + + Thank you! + + Signed-off-by: Seija K. <pi1024e@github.com> ## builtin/merge.c ## -@@ builtin/merge.c: static void prepare_to_commit(struct commit_list *remoteheads) - if (run_commit_hook(0 < option_edit, get_index_file(), "prepare-commit-msg", - git_path_merge_msg(the_repository), "merge", NULL)) - abort_commit(remoteheads, NULL); -- if (0 < option_edit) { -- if (launch_editor(git_path_merge_msg(the_repository), NULL, NULL)) -- abort_commit(remoteheads, NULL); -+ if (0 < option_edit && launch_editor(git_path_merge_msg(the_repository), NULL, NULL)) { -+ abort_commit(remoteheads, NULL); - } - - if (!no_verify && run_commit_hook(0 < option_edit, get_index_file(), @@ builtin/merge.c: static int merging_a_throwaway_tag(struct commit *commit) if (!merge_remote_util(commit) || !merge_remote_util(commit)->obj || @@ builtin/merge.c: static int merging_a_throwaway_tag(struct commit *commit) /* * Now we know we are merging a tag object. Are we downstream @@ builtin/merge.c: int cmd_merge(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix) - fast_forward = FF_NO; } -- if (!use_strategies) { + if (!use_strategies) { - if (!remoteheads) - ; /* already up-to-date */ - else if (!remoteheads->next) - add_strategies(pull_twohead, DEFAULT_TWOHEAD); - else -+ if (!use_strategies && remoteheads) { -+ /* not up-to-date */ -+ if (remoteheads->next) - add_strategies(pull_octopus, DEFAULT_OCTOPUS); -+ else -+ add_strategies(pull_twohead, DEFAULT_TWOHEAD); +- add_strategies(pull_octopus, DEFAULT_OCTOPUS); ++ if (remoteheads) { ++ /* not up-to-date */ ++ if (remoteheads->next) ++ add_strategies(pull_octopus, DEFAULT_OCTOPUS); ++ else ++ add_strategies(pull_twohead, DEFAULT_TWOHEAD); ++ } } for (i = 0; i < use_strategies_nr; i++) { builtin/merge.c | 82 +++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------- 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-) diff --git a/builtin/merge.c b/builtin/merge.c index 4c133402a6..148d08f8db 100644 --- a/builtin/merge.c +++ b/builtin/merge.c @@ -1213,7 +1213,7 @@ static int merging_a_throwaway_tag(struct commit *commit) if (!merge_remote_util(commit) || !merge_remote_util(commit)->obj || merge_remote_util(commit)->obj->type != OBJ_TAG) - return is_throwaway_tag; + return 0; /* * Now we know we are merging a tag object. Are we downstream @@ -1460,12 +1460,13 @@ int cmd_merge(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix) } if (!use_strategies) { - if (!remoteheads) - ; /* already up-to-date */ - else if (!remoteheads->next) - add_strategies(pull_twohead, DEFAULT_TWOHEAD); - else - add_strategies(pull_octopus, DEFAULT_OCTOPUS); + if (remoteheads) { + /* not up-to-date */ + if (remoteheads->next) + add_strategies(pull_octopus, DEFAULT_OCTOPUS); + else + add_strategies(pull_twohead, DEFAULT_TWOHEAD); + } } for (i = 0; i < use_strategies_nr; i++) { @@ -1475,15 +1476,15 @@ int cmd_merge(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix) allow_trivial = 0; } - if (!remoteheads) - ; /* already up-to-date */ - else if (!remoteheads->next) - common = get_merge_bases(head_commit, remoteheads->item); - else { - struct commit_list *list = remoteheads; - commit_list_insert(head_commit, &list); - common = get_octopus_merge_bases(list); - free(list); + if (remoteheads) { + /* not up-to-date */ + if (remoteheads->next) { + struct commit_list *list = remoteheads; + commit_list_insert(head_commit, &list); + common = get_octopus_merge_bases(list); + free(list); + } else + common = get_merge_bases(head_commit, remoteheads->item); } update_ref("updating ORIG_HEAD", "ORIG_HEAD", @@ -1542,31 +1543,7 @@ int cmd_merge(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix) finish(head_commit, remoteheads, &commit->object.oid, msg.buf); remove_merge_branch_state(the_repository); goto done; - } else if (!remoteheads->next && common->next) - ; - /* - * We are not doing octopus and not fast-forward. Need - * a real merge. - */ - else if (!remoteheads->next && !common->next && option_commit) { - /* - * We are not doing octopus, not fast-forward, and have - * only one common. - */ - refresh_cache(REFRESH_QUIET); - if (allow_trivial && fast_forward != FF_ONLY) { - /* See if it is really trivial. */ - git_committer_info(IDENT_STRICT); - printf(_("Trying really trivial in-index merge...\n")); - if (!read_tree_trivial(&common->item->object.oid, - &head_commit->object.oid, - &remoteheads->item->object.oid)) { - ret = merge_trivial(head_commit, remoteheads); - goto done; - } - printf(_("Nope.\n")); - } - } else { + } else if (remoteheads->next || (!common->next && !option_commit)) { /* * An octopus. If we can reach all the remote we are up * to date. @@ -1592,6 +1569,24 @@ int cmd_merge(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix) finish_up_to_date(_("Already up to date. Yeeah!")); goto done; } + } else if (!common->next) { + /* + * We are not doing octopus, not fast-forward, and have + * only one common. + */ + refresh_cache(REFRESH_QUIET); + if (allow_trivial && fast_forward != FF_ONLY) { + /* See if it is really trivial. */ + git_committer_info(IDENT_STRICT); + printf(_("Trying really trivial in-index merge...\n")); + if (!read_tree_trivial(&common->item->object.oid, + &head_commit->object.oid, + &remoteheads->item->object.oid)) { + ret = merge_trivial(head_commit, remoteheads); + goto done; + } + printf(_("Nope.\n")); + } } if (fast_forward == FF_ONLY) @@ -1685,9 +1680,8 @@ int cmd_merge(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix) use_strategies[0]->name); ret = 2; goto done; - } else if (best_strategy == wt_strategy) - ; /* We already have its result in the working tree. */ - else { + } else if (best_strategy != wt_strategy) { + /* We do not have its result in the working tree. */ printf(_("Rewinding the tree to pristine...\n")); restore_state(&head_commit->object.oid, &stash); printf(_("Using the %s to prepare resolving by hand.\n"), base-commit: e31aba42fb12bdeb0f850829e008e1e3f43af500 -- gitgitgadget ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v3] Simplify merge logic 2020-11-17 21:54 ` [PATCH v2] Simplify " Seija K. via GitGitGadget @ 2020-11-17 22:06 ` Seija K. via GitGitGadget 0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread From: Seija K. via GitGitGadget @ 2020-11-17 22:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: git; +Cc: Seija K From: Seija K <pi1024e@github.com> commit: Avoid extraneous boolean checking by simplifying the if statements. This is so that the code can be clearer and we can avoid duplicate checks. Changes since v1: Undid if statement combos as suggested by Junio C Hamano. Currently, the logic for merging is somewhat confusing. So I simplified said logic to be equivalent, but simpler. I tested all my changes to ensure in practice they work as well. First, I tested out which branch would occur for every possible value below: remoteheads->next | common->next | option_commit | Branch -- | -- | -- | -- T | T | T | A T | T | F | A T | F | T | A T | F | F | A F | T | T | C F | T | F | C F | F | T | B F | F | F | A Then, using this truth table, I was able to deduce that if the second branch ran, the if statement for the first branch would be false. Then, taking the inverse, I found that many of the checks were redundant, so I rewrote the if statements to have each branch run under the same exact conditions, except each value is evaluated as little as possible. I hope you find value in these changes. Thank you! Signed-off-by: Seija K. <pi1024e@github.com> --- Simplify merge logic commit: Avoid extraneous boolean checking by simplifying the if statements. This is so that the code can be clearer and we can avoid duplicate checks. Changes since v1: Undid if statement combos as suggested by Junio C Hamano. Currently, the logic for merging is somewhat confusing. So I simplified said logic to be equivalent, but simpler. I tested all my changes to ensure in practice they work as well. First, I tested out which branch would occur for every possible value below: remoteheads->nextcommon->nextoption_commitBranchTTTATTFATFTATFFAFTTCFTFC FFTBFFFAThen, using this truth table, I was able to deduce that if the second branch ran, the if statement for the first branch would be false. Then, taking the inverse, I found that many of the checks were redundant, so I rewrote the if statements to have each branch run under the same exact conditions, except each value is evaluated as little as possible. I hope you find value in these changes. Thank you! Published-As: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/releases/tag/pr-git-911%2Fpi1024e%2Fmerge-cleanup-v3 Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-git-911/pi1024e/merge-cleanup-v3 Pull-Request: https://github.com/git/git/pull/911 Range-diff vs v2: 1: dd1c4dd678 ! 1: 92e0b7ec32 Simplify merge logic @@ Commit message Simplify merge logic commit: Avoid extraneous boolean checking by simplifying the if statements. - This is so that the code can be clearer and avoid duplicate boolean checks. + This is so that the code can be clearer and we can avoid duplicate checks. Changes since v1: Undid if statement combos as suggested by Junio C Hamano. - The current logic for the merging is somewhat confusing. + Currently, the logic for merging is somewhat confusing. So I simplified said logic to be equivalent, but simpler. I tested all my changes to ensure in practice they work as well. builtin/merge.c | 82 +++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------- 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-) diff --git a/builtin/merge.c b/builtin/merge.c index 4c133402a6..148d08f8db 100644 --- a/builtin/merge.c +++ b/builtin/merge.c @@ -1213,7 +1213,7 @@ static int merging_a_throwaway_tag(struct commit *commit) if (!merge_remote_util(commit) || !merge_remote_util(commit)->obj || merge_remote_util(commit)->obj->type != OBJ_TAG) - return is_throwaway_tag; + return 0; /* * Now we know we are merging a tag object. Are we downstream @@ -1460,12 +1460,13 @@ int cmd_merge(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix) } if (!use_strategies) { - if (!remoteheads) - ; /* already up-to-date */ - else if (!remoteheads->next) - add_strategies(pull_twohead, DEFAULT_TWOHEAD); - else - add_strategies(pull_octopus, DEFAULT_OCTOPUS); + if (remoteheads) { + /* not up-to-date */ + if (remoteheads->next) + add_strategies(pull_octopus, DEFAULT_OCTOPUS); + else + add_strategies(pull_twohead, DEFAULT_TWOHEAD); + } } for (i = 0; i < use_strategies_nr; i++) { @@ -1475,15 +1476,15 @@ int cmd_merge(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix) allow_trivial = 0; } - if (!remoteheads) - ; /* already up-to-date */ - else if (!remoteheads->next) - common = get_merge_bases(head_commit, remoteheads->item); - else { - struct commit_list *list = remoteheads; - commit_list_insert(head_commit, &list); - common = get_octopus_merge_bases(list); - free(list); + if (remoteheads) { + /* not up-to-date */ + if (remoteheads->next) { + struct commit_list *list = remoteheads; + commit_list_insert(head_commit, &list); + common = get_octopus_merge_bases(list); + free(list); + } else + common = get_merge_bases(head_commit, remoteheads->item); } update_ref("updating ORIG_HEAD", "ORIG_HEAD", @@ -1542,31 +1543,7 @@ int cmd_merge(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix) finish(head_commit, remoteheads, &commit->object.oid, msg.buf); remove_merge_branch_state(the_repository); goto done; - } else if (!remoteheads->next && common->next) - ; - /* - * We are not doing octopus and not fast-forward. Need - * a real merge. - */ - else if (!remoteheads->next && !common->next && option_commit) { - /* - * We are not doing octopus, not fast-forward, and have - * only one common. - */ - refresh_cache(REFRESH_QUIET); - if (allow_trivial && fast_forward != FF_ONLY) { - /* See if it is really trivial. */ - git_committer_info(IDENT_STRICT); - printf(_("Trying really trivial in-index merge...\n")); - if (!read_tree_trivial(&common->item->object.oid, - &head_commit->object.oid, - &remoteheads->item->object.oid)) { - ret = merge_trivial(head_commit, remoteheads); - goto done; - } - printf(_("Nope.\n")); - } - } else { + } else if (remoteheads->next || (!common->next && !option_commit)) { /* * An octopus. If we can reach all the remote we are up * to date. @@ -1592,6 +1569,24 @@ int cmd_merge(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix) finish_up_to_date(_("Already up to date. Yeeah!")); goto done; } + } else if (!common->next) { + /* + * We are not doing octopus, not fast-forward, and have + * only one common. + */ + refresh_cache(REFRESH_QUIET); + if (allow_trivial && fast_forward != FF_ONLY) { + /* See if it is really trivial. */ + git_committer_info(IDENT_STRICT); + printf(_("Trying really trivial in-index merge...\n")); + if (!read_tree_trivial(&common->item->object.oid, + &head_commit->object.oid, + &remoteheads->item->object.oid)) { + ret = merge_trivial(head_commit, remoteheads); + goto done; + } + printf(_("Nope.\n")); + } } if (fast_forward == FF_ONLY) @@ -1685,9 +1680,8 @@ int cmd_merge(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix) use_strategies[0]->name); ret = 2; goto done; - } else if (best_strategy == wt_strategy) - ; /* We already have its result in the working tree. */ - else { + } else if (best_strategy != wt_strategy) { + /* We do not have its result in the working tree. */ printf(_("Rewinding the tree to pristine...\n")); restore_state(&head_commit->object.oid, &stash); printf(_("Using the %s to prepare resolving by hand.\n"), base-commit: e31aba42fb12bdeb0f850829e008e1e3f43af500 -- gitgitgadget ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-11-17 22:07 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2020-11-08 21:37 [PATCH] Simplified merge logic Seija K. via GitGitGadget 2020-11-09 23:17 ` Junio C Hamano 2020-11-17 21:54 ` [PATCH v2] Simplify " Seija K. via GitGitGadget 2020-11-17 22:06 ` [PATCH v3] " Seija K. via GitGitGadget
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).