Browse Source
Add some documentation for the logic behind the conflict normalization in rerere. Helped-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>maint
Thomas Gummerer
7 years ago
committed by
Junio C Hamano
2 changed files with 140 additions and 4 deletions
@ -0,0 +1,140 @@
@@ -0,0 +1,140 @@
|
||||
Rerere |
||||
====== |
||||
|
||||
This document describes the rerere logic. |
||||
|
||||
Conflict normalization |
||||
---------------------- |
||||
|
||||
To ensure recorded conflict resolutions can be looked up in the rerere |
||||
database, even when branches are merged in a different order, |
||||
different branches are merged that result in the same conflict, or |
||||
when different conflict style settings are used, rerere normalizes the |
||||
conflicts before writing them to the rerere database. |
||||
|
||||
Different conflict styles and branch names are normalized by stripping |
||||
the labels from the conflict markers, and removing the common ancestor |
||||
version from the `diff3` conflict style. Branches that are merged |
||||
in different order are normalized by sorting the conflict hunks. More |
||||
on each of those steps in the following sections. |
||||
|
||||
Once these two normalization operations are applied, a conflict ID is |
||||
calculated based on the normalized conflict, which is later used by |
||||
rerere to look up the conflict in the rerere database. |
||||
|
||||
Removing the common ancestor version |
||||
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
||||
|
||||
Say we have three branches AB, AC and AC2. The common ancestor of |
||||
these branches has a file with a line containing the string "A" (for |
||||
brevity this is called "line A" in the rest of the document). In |
||||
branch AB this line is changed to "B", in AC, this line is changed to |
||||
"C", and branch AC2 is forked off of AC, after the line was changed to |
||||
"C". |
||||
|
||||
Forking a branch ABAC off of branch AB and then merging AC into it, we |
||||
get a conflict like the following: |
||||
|
||||
<<<<<<< HEAD |
||||
B |
||||
======= |
||||
C |
||||
>>>>>>> AC |
||||
|
||||
Doing the analogous with AC2 (forking a branch ABAC2 off of branch AB |
||||
and then merging branch AC2 into it), using the diff3 conflict style, |
||||
we get a conflict like the following: |
||||
|
||||
<<<<<<< HEAD |
||||
B |
||||
||||||| merged common ancestors |
||||
A |
||||
======= |
||||
C |
||||
>>>>>>> AC2 |
||||
|
||||
By resolving this conflict, to leave line D, the user declares: |
||||
|
||||
After examining what branches AB and AC did, I believe that making |
||||
line A into line D is the best thing to do that is compatible with |
||||
what AB and AC wanted to do. |
||||
|
||||
As branch AC2 refers to the same commit as AC, the above implies that |
||||
this is also compatible what AB and AC2 wanted to do. |
||||
|
||||
By extension, this means that rerere should recognize that the above |
||||
conflicts are the same. To do this, the labels on the conflict |
||||
markers are stripped, and the common ancestor version is removed. The above |
||||
examples would both result in the following normalized conflict: |
||||
|
||||
<<<<<<< |
||||
B |
||||
======= |
||||
C |
||||
>>>>>>> |
||||
|
||||
Sorting hunks |
||||
~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
||||
|
||||
As before, lets imagine that a common ancestor had a file with line A |
||||
its early part, and line X in its late part. And then four branches |
||||
are forked that do these things: |
||||
|
||||
- AB: changes A to B |
||||
- AC: changes A to C |
||||
- XY: changes X to Y |
||||
- XZ: changes X to Z |
||||
|
||||
Now, forking a branch ABAC off of branch AB and then merging AC into |
||||
it, and forking a branch ACAB off of branch AC and then merging AB |
||||
into it, would yield the conflict in a different order. The former |
||||
would say "A became B or C, what now?" while the latter would say "A |
||||
became C or B, what now?" |
||||
|
||||
As a reminder, the act of merging AC into ABAC and resolving the |
||||
conflict to leave line D means that the user declares: |
||||
|
||||
After examining what branches AB and AC did, I believe that |
||||
making line A into line D is the best thing to do that is |
||||
compatible with what AB and AC wanted to do. |
||||
|
||||
So the conflict we would see when merging AB into ACAB should be |
||||
resolved the same way---it is the resolution that is in line with that |
||||
declaration. |
||||
|
||||
Imagine that similarly previously a branch XYXZ was forked from XY, |
||||
and XZ was merged into it, and resolved "X became Y or Z" into "X |
||||
became W". |
||||
|
||||
Now, if a branch ABXY was forked from AB and then merged XY, then ABXY |
||||
would have line B in its early part and line Y in its later part. |
||||
Such a merge would be quite clean. We can construct 4 combinations |
||||
using these four branches ((AB, AC) x (XY, XZ)). |
||||
|
||||
Merging ABXY and ACXZ would make "an early A became B or C, a late X |
||||
became Y or Z" conflict, while merging ACXY and ABXZ would make "an |
||||
early A became C or B, a late X became Y or Z". We can see there are |
||||
4 combinations of ("B or C", "C or B") x ("X or Y", "Y or X"). |
||||
|
||||
By sorting, the conflict is given its canonical name, namely, "an |
||||
early part became B or C, a late part becames X or Y", and whenever |
||||
any of these four patterns appear, and we can get to the same conflict |
||||
and resolution that we saw earlier. |
||||
|
||||
Without the sorting, we'd have to somehow find a previous resolution |
||||
from combinatorial explosion. |
||||
|
||||
Conflict ID calculation |
||||
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
||||
|
||||
Once the conflict normalization is done, the conflict ID is calculated |
||||
as the sha1 hash of the conflict hunks appended to each other, |
||||
separated by <NUL> characters. The conflict markers are stripped out |
||||
before the sha1 is calculated. So in the example above, where we |
||||
merge branch AC which changes line A to line C, into branch AB, which |
||||
changes line A to line C, the conflict ID would be |
||||
SHA1('B<NUL>C<NUL>'). |
||||
|
||||
If there are multiple conflicts in one file, the sha1 is calculated |
||||
the same way with all hunks appended to each other, in the order in |
||||
which they appear in the file, separated by a <NUL> character. |
Loading…
Reference in new issue