From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
To: Andrew Ottaviano <andrew_o1995@live.com>,
"git@vger.kernel.org" <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: Rebase Question
Date: Wed, 12 May 2021 02:23:36 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <609b827884bfd_6e0fc2083c@natae.notmuch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR07MB59526F40B255183931649AD19C529@MN2PR07MB5952.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Andrew Ottaviano wrote:
> The difficulty with this is that if I have merge conflicts that show
> up on my first commit, I have to resolve that stupid thing for every
> subsequent commit.
I don't quite understand that. If you have resolved the chunk, then that
chunk is resolved, and the rest of the commits don't have to worry
about that...
Unless they touch *precisely* the same lines as the first commit, in
which case... Yeah, you have to resolve that stupid thing over and over.
> The solution that I thought of is instead of resolving conflicts from
> the bottom up (starting with earliest history), resolving from the top
> down (latest to earliest) and resolving the conflict in the commit it
> occurred.
Well, this is interesting because it's something I've wanted to write
about for a long time, and it's what I call my "pronged approach".
I actually do *both*; I do a rebase and fix the problems from 1) the bottom-up,
but after I have resolved the conflicts from 2) the top-down. In 1)
(bottom-up) I resolve the conflicts in a rebase, and in 2) I resolve the
conflicts in merge, but in *both* the end result sould be the exactly
same [`git diff 1) 2)` is empty].
Yes, it is more work, but at the end of the day I'm 100% sure I did the
rebase right, so I don't have to think about it that much; either
there's a diff or there isn't.
In fact, I rarely do just one rebase, because quite often I miss things,
so I do a second, or third, or fourth rebase, but at the end I make sure
that the diff with the merge (top-down approach) is the same.
To facilitate this work I use two tools: 1) git rerere [1] (others have
mentioned this), and 2) git reintegrate [2] (only useful if there's more
than one branch you are merging).
Yeah, it's a lot of work, but I'd rather do a lot of tedious work that
I'm 100% sure is correct, than do a little bit of work that I can't
easily verify.
Cheers.
[1] https://git-scm.com/docs/git-rerere
[2] https://github.com/felipec/git-reintegrate
--
Felipe Contreras
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-05-12 7:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-05-12 0:06 Rebase Question Andrew Ottaviano
2021-05-12 0:23 ` Jacob Keller
2021-05-12 0:29 ` Bryan Turner
2021-05-12 0:44 ` Jeff King
2021-05-12 6:22 ` Junio C Hamano
2021-05-12 7:23 ` Felipe Contreras [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2011-03-11 19:57 rebase question Ryan Sun
2011-03-13 1:05 ` Martin von Zweigbergk
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
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=609b827884bfd_6e0fc2083c@natae.notmuch \
--to=felipe.contreras@gmail.com \
--cc=andrew_o1995@live.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
/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.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.