From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Need review of emacs-25-merge branch Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 18:20:04 +0200 Message-ID: <83fuyjdi2z.fsf@gnu.org> References: Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1451492374 7791 80.91.229.3 (30 Dec 2015 16:19:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 16:19:34 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: John Wiegley Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Dec 30 17:19:30 2015 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 1aEJTD-0001su-V9 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 17:19:28 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:52937 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aEJTD-0007K7-Dk for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 11:19:27 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35524) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aEJT1-0007Jw-HP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 11:19:16 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aEJSx-0001l1-C0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 11:19:15 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:55356) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aEJSx-0001kx-8h; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 11:19:11 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:1138 helo=HOME-C4E4A596F7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1aEJSw-00045b-Iz; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 11:19:11 -0500 In-reply-to: (message from John Wiegley on Tue, 29 Dec 2015 21:50:16 -0800) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e 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:197176 Archived-At: > From: John Wiegley > Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 21:50:16 -0800 > > Bear with me, this is my first merge attempt, after a long period of no > merging having happened... It's hard to look at the humongous diffs without some focus. It would be better if you told where did the conflicts occur, so that only those parts could be eyeballed. One thing I noticed is that the merges in the tests/ directory didn't go well: look inside there and you will see that Git brought back several directories whose contents were moved on master. These need to be fixed manually, I guess. > To make things easier on myself, I used git-imerge, which is a power tool for > managing large scale forks: I guess that's okay for such a problematic merge, but in the future I think we should insist on using gitmerge.el. We must make sure it does its job, and does it well, or else we will have no control on what's going on in the repository. > 4. It didn't take "back-port" markers into account, and yet it didn't run > into conflicts because of them either. I'd like to know if this mattered, > how you checked that it mattered, and based on that feedback I'll make > changes to git-imerge to choose the "ours" strategy automatically for > such commit pairs. How does one go about this?