From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Cc: Bryan Turner <bturner@atlassian.com>,
Andrew Ottaviano <andrew_o1995@live.com>,
"git@vger.kernel.org" <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Rebase Question
Date: Wed, 12 May 2021 15:22:24 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqqy2ckfp3z.fsf@gitster.g> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YJsk49WBd27NrCAA@coredump.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Tue, 11 May 2021 20:44:19 -0400")
Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> I don't think rerere helps here. In a rebase like this, the problem is
> that it _isn't_ the same conflict.
>
> Imagine a case like this:
> ...
> Applying the first commit gets this conflict (in diff3 form)
>
> <<<<<<< ours
> base
> another
> ||||||| base
> base
> =======
> one
> >>>>>>> theirs
>
> After we fix that up to "one\nanother", the second conflict is:
>
> <<<<<<< ours
> one
> another
> ||||||| base
> one
> =======
> two
> >>>>>>> theirs
>
> Likewise, even if you had done the original merge between branch tips,
> you'd have seen yet another conflict:
>
> <<<<<<< ours
> two
> ||||||| base
> base
> =======
> base
> another
> >>>>>>> theirs
>
> The actual lines changed are the same, but as the nearby context is
> continually shifting, we don't consider these to be the "same" conflict.
Correct. The conflict you see at each step may be trivial to
resolve, but would not "replay" at all, exactly because they are not
the same conflicts. Knowing that the user would resolve
base --> base/another
\ \
---> one--------- one/another
does not help us to decide that
base --> two -----------
\ \
---> base/another---???
is resolved to two/another.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-05-12 6:22 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 [this message]
2021-05-12 7:23 ` Felipe Contreras
-- 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=xmqqy2ckfp3z.fsf@gitster.g \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=andrew_o1995@live.com \
--cc=bturner@atlassian.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peff@peff.net \
/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.