From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Engster Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Rewriting bzrmerge.el Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2014 17:26:41 +0100 Message-ID: <87tx20whtq.fsf@engster.org> References: <20141027000718.F09B5382A66@snark.thyrsus.com> <87bno8y0rt.fsf_-_@engster.org> <871tp4xx4i.fsf@engster.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1416068838 27624 80.91.229.3 (15 Nov 2014 16:27:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2014 16:27:18 +0000 (UTC) Cc: "Eric S. Raymond" , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Nov 15 17:27:02 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XpgBg-0006f6-3P for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 15 Nov 2014 17:27:00 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:41025 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XpgBf-0007pM-NP for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 15 Nov 2014 11:26:59 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36575) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XpgBX-0007nw-8f for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 15 Nov 2014 11:26:57 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XpgBR-0003jx-6u for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 15 Nov 2014 11:26:51 -0500 Original-Received: from randomsample.de ([5.45.97.173]:33790) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XpgBQ-0003jo-UJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 15 Nov 2014 11:26:45 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=randomsample.de; s=a; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Cc:To:From; bh=CI9cMqVA08liesi179qEY2xFPxHn15ic+rfOqnU1IHw=; b=C225k5b1UPSEGMDFJvmwc0gkws084NE6Ujgy8LcTY3lkMfblv6oljNQHwuuTzBHYi6QveZ6fWbhPsrORjKM5ljFxWUPXPGtR+3tB62W2YkSVcO4KeVGPovZnEpvE4aFP; Original-Received: from ip2504b377.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de ([37.4.179.119] helo=spaten) by randomsample.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XpgBP-00086c-Ry; Sat, 15 Nov 2014 17:26:44 +0100 In-Reply-To: <871tp4xx4i.fsf@engster.org> (David Engster's message of "Sat, 15 Nov 2014 17:10:53 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13001 (Ma Gnus v0.10) Emacs/24.3.91 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 5.45.97.173 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:177199 Archived-At: David Engster writes: > Stefan Monnier writes: >>> So, with bzr, we could pretty easily commit only the meta-data of >>> skipped commits, so that they were regarded as merged. But being the >>> stupid content tracker that Git is, I think that ship has sailed. > >> >> AFAICT, there is no difference between Git and Bzr in this respect. >> >>> We can of course cherry-pick a commit with the 'ours' merge strategy, >>> but that will of course change the SHA1... >> >> bzrmerge.el does not cherry-pick and neither should gitmerge.el. > > OK: It gradually builds up a merge from several small ones using > different strategies. > >> It should identify those commits that are "backports" (or similar) and >> merge them with the `ours' strategy (which will indeed leave the files >> unchanged while affecting the metadata, AFAIK). > > But after a merge, 'git log emacs-24 ^master' should be empty, just like > 'bzr missing ../emacs-24 --theirs-only' was empty, right? You cannot > achieve that with the 'ours' strategy, since it will not be the same > commit anymore. On second thought: Do you mean we should just merge them in a series of merge commits (maybe in a temporary branch as to not pollute 'master' too much)? That's easy, of course. I was hoping I could somehow replicate the workflow we did with Bazaar, where we had one single merge commit for each merge. -David