The rebase and merge commands used diff-tree to display the summary stats of
what files had changed from the operation. diff-tree does not read the
diff ui configuration options, so the diff.color setting was not used.
Have rebase and merge call diff rather than diff-tree, which does read the
diff ui options.
Signed-off-by: James Bowes <jbowes@dangerouslyinc.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
This merge strategy largely piggy-backs on git-merge-recursive.
When merging trees A and B, if B corresponds to a subtree of A,
B is first adjusted to match the tree structure of A, instead of
reading the trees at the same level. This adjustment is also
done to the common ancestor tree.
If you are pulling updates from git-gui repository into git.git
repository, the root level of the former corresponds to git-gui/
subdirectory of the latter. The tree object of git-gui's toplevel
is wrapped in a fake tree object, whose sole entry has name 'git-gui'
and records object name of the true tree, before being used by
the 3-way merge code.
If you are merging the other way, only the git-gui/ subtree of
git.git is extracted and merged into git-gui's toplevel.
The detection of corresponding subtree is done by comparing the
pathnames and types in the toplevel of the tree.
Heuristics galore! That's the git way ;-).
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
This makes git-fetch <URL> && git-merge FETCH_HEAD produce the
same merge message as git-pull <URL>.
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@dev.mellanox.co.il>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
The message formating (commit v1.5.0.3-28-gbe242d5) broke the && chain.
Noticed by Dmitry Torokhov.
Signed-off-by: Santi Béjar <sbejar@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Warn the user that the "-m" option is ignored in the case of a fast
forward. That may save some confusion in the case where the user
doesn't know about fast forwards yet and may not realize that the
behavior here is intentional.
Signed-off-by: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@citi.umich.edu>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
When we cannot fast forward the working tree and the current
branch, git-merge did not exit with non-zero status.
Noticed by Larry Streepy, the section to be fixed identfied by
Johannes Schindelin.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
The shell loop to determine if we should skip the trivial
in-index merge stage based on what strategy is given was not
prepared to have more than one strategy listed in the variable
$no_trivial_merge_strategies.
This does not trigger unless you use a modified git but the fix
is simple and straightforward, so let's fix it before 1.5.0.1.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
It used to throw potentially multi-line log message at reflog.
Just record the heads that were given to be merged at the command
line and the action.
Revert the removal of the check in "git-update-ref -m" I made earlier
which was only a work-around for this.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
This updates five commands (merge, pull, rebase, revert and cherry-pick)
so that they can be started from a subdirectory.
This may not actually be what we want to do. These commands are
inherently whole-tree operations, and an inexperienced user may
mistakenly expect a "git pull" from a subdirectory would merge
only the subdirectory the command started from.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
In the early days of Git we performed a 3-way read-tree based merge
before attempting any specific merge strategy, as our core merge
strategies of merge-one-file and merge-recursive were slower script
based programs which took far longer to execute. This was a good
performance optimization in the past, as most merges were able to
be handled strictly by `read-tree -m -u`.
However now that merge-recursive is a C based program which performs
a full 3-way read-tree before it starts running we need to pay the
cost of the 3-way read-tree twice if we have to do any sort of file
level merging. This slows down some classes of simple merges which
`read-tree -m -u` could not handle but which merge-recursive does
automatically.
For a really trivial merge which can be handled entirely by
`read-tree -m -u`, skipping the read-tree and just going directly
into merge-recursive saves on average 50 ms on my PowerPC G4 system.
May sound odd, but it does appear to be true.
In a really simple merge which needs to use merge-recursive to handle
a file that was modified on both branches, skipping the read-tree
in git-merge saves on average almost 100 ms (on the same PowerPC G4)
as we avoid doing some work twice.
We only avoid `read-tree -m -u` if the only strategy to use is
merge-recursive, as not all merge strategies perform as well as
merge-recursive does.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
If the user tries to run a porcelainish command which requires
a working directory in a bare repository they may get unexpected
results which are difficult to predict and may differ from command
to command.
Instead we should detect that the current repository is a bare
repository and refuse to run the command there, as there is no
working directory associated with it.
[jc: updated Shawn's original somewhat -- bugs are mine.]
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
After a pull that results in a conflicted merge, a new user
often tries another "git pull" in desperation. When the index
is unmerged, merge backends correctly bail out without touching
either index nor the working tree, so this does not make the
wound any worse.
The user will however see several lines of messsages during this
process, such as "filename: needs merge", "you need to resolve
your current index first", "Merging...", and "Entry ... would be
overwritten by merge. Cannot merge.". They are unnecessarily
alarming, and cause useful conflict messages from the first pull
scroll off the top of the terminal.
This changes pull and merge to run "git-ls-files -u" upfront and
stop them much earlier than we currently do. Old timers may
know better and would not to try pulling again before cleaning
things up; this change adds extra overhead that is unnecessary
for them. But this would be worth paying for to save new people
from needless confusion.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
If git-merge is invoked without a strategy argument it is probably
being run as a porcelain-ish command directly and is not being run
from within git-pull. However we still should honor whatever merge
strategy the user may have selected in their configuration, just as
`git-pull .` would have.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Junio rightly pointed out that the --reflog-action parameter
was starting to get out of control, as most porcelain code
needed to hand it to other porcelain and plumbing alike to
ensure the reflog contained the top-level user action and
not the lower-level actions it invoked.
At Junio's suggestion we are introducing the new set_reflog_action
function to all shell scripts, allowing them to declare early on
what their default reflog name should be, but this setting only
takes effect if the caller has not already set the GIT_REFLOG_ACTION
environment variable.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Displaying the SHA1 of 'their' branch (the branch being merged into
the current branch) is not nearly as friendly as just displaying
the name of that branch, especially if that branch is already local
to this repository.
git-merge now sets the environment variable 'GITHEAD_%(sha1)=%(name)'
for each argument it gets passed, making the actual input name that
resolved to the commit '%(sha1)' easily available to the invoked
merge strategy.
git-merge-recursive makes use of these environment variables when
they are available by using '%(name)' whenever it outputs the commit
identification rather than '%(sha1)'. This is most obvious in the
conflict hunks created by xdl_merge:
$ git mege sideb~1
<<<<<<< HEAD:INSTALL
Good!
=======
Oops.
>>>>>>> sideb~1:INSTALL
[jc: adjusted a test script and a minor constness glitch.]
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
An earlier commit made "reset --hard" chattier but leaking its
message from "git rebase" (which calls it when first rewinding
the current branch to prepare replaying our own changes) without
explanation was confusing, so add an extra message to mention
it. Inside restorestate in merge (which is rarely exercised
codepath, where more than one strategies are attempted),
resetting to the original state uses "reset --hard" -- this can
be squelched entirely.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
This hacks the input to fmt-merge-msg to make the message for
merging early part of a branch a little easier to read.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
99.9999% of the time, the command is used with a single
strategy; after a merge failure, saying "No strategy handled the
merge" is technically correct, but there is no point stressing
we tried and failed all the possibilities the user has given.
Just say that it failed.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
An earlier commit 3683dc5a broke the merge message generation with
a careless use of && where it was not needed, breaking the merge
message for cases where non branches are given.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
While deciding if the new style command line argument is a tag
or a branch, we checked it with "git show-ref -s --verify" to
see if results in an error, but when it is not a branch, the
check leaked the error message out, which was not needed to be
shown to the end user.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
This uses the previous update to read-tree in Porcelain-ish
commands "git checkout" and "git merge" to loosen the check
when switching branches.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
In a repository with core.warnambiguousrefs turned off, and with
a branch and a tag that have the same name 'frotz',
git merge frotz
would merge the commit pointed at by the tag 'frotz' but
incorrectly would identify what was merged as 'branch frotz' in
the merge message.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
If a branch name to be merged is misspelled, the command leaked error
messages from underlying plumbing commands, which were helpful only
to people who know how the command are implemented to diagnose the
breakage, but simply puzzling and unhelpful for the end users.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
This teaches the oft-requested syntax
git merge $commit
to implement merging the named commit to the current branch.
This hopefully would make "git merge" usable as the first class
UI instead of being a mere backend for "git pull".
Most notably, $commit above can be any committish, so you can
say for example:
git merge js/shortlog~2
to merge early part of a topic branch without merging the rest
of it.
A custom merge message can be given with the new --message=<msg>
parameter. The message is prepended in front of the usual
"Merge ..." message autogenerated with fmt-merge-message.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
This renames merge-recursive written in Python to merge-recursive-old,
and makes merge-recur as a synonym to merge-recursive. We do not remove
merge-recur yet, but we will remove merge-recur and merge-recursive-old
in a few releases down the road.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
During git-merge-recur development, you could set an environment
variable GIT_USE_RECUR_FOR_RECURSIVE to use WIP recur in place
of the recursive strategy.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
This is just an update for people being interested. Alex and me were
busy with that project for a few days now. While it has progressed nicely,
there are quite a couple TODOs in merge-recursive.c, just search for "TODO".
For impatient people: yes, it passes all the tests, and yes, according
to the evil test Alex did, it is faster than the Python script.
But no, it is not yet finished. Biggest points are:
- there are still three external calls
- in the end, it should not be necessary to write the index more than once
(just before exiting)
- a lot of things can be refactored to make the code easier and shorter
BTW we cannot just plug in git-merge-tree yet, because git-merge-tree
does not handle renames at all.
This patch is meant for testing, and as such,
- it compile the program to git-merge-recur
- it adjusts the scripts and tests to use git-merge-recur instead of
git-merge-recursive
- it provides "TEST", a script to execute the tests regarding -recursive
- it inlines the changes to read-cache.c (read_cache_from(), discard_cache()
and refresh_cache_entry())
Brought to you by Alex Riesen and Dscho
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
When git-merge updates HEAD as a result of a merge record what
happened during the merge into the reflog associated with HEAD
(if any). The log reports who caused the update (git-merge or
git-pull, by invoking git-merge), what the remote ref names were
and the type of merge process used.
The merge information can be useful when reviewing a reflog for
a branch such as `master` where fast forward and trivial in index
merges might be common as the user tracks an upstream.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Some implementations of "expr" (e.g. FreeBSD's) fail, if an
argument starts with a dash.
Signed-off-by: Dennis Stosberg <dennis@stosberg.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Some people tend to do many little commits on a topic branch,
recording all the trials and errors, and when the topic is
reasonably cooked well, would want to record the net effect of
the series as one commit on top of the mainline, removing the
cruft from the history. The topic is then abandoned or forked
off again from that point at the mainline.
The barebone porcelainish that comes with core git tools does
not officially support such operation, but you can fake it by
using "git pull --no-merge" when such a topic branch is not a
strict superset of the mainline, like this:
git checkout mainline
git pull --no-commit . that-topic-branch
: fix conflicts if any
rm -f .git/MERGE_HEAD
git commit -a -m 'consolidated commit log message'
git branch -f that-topic-branch ;# now fully merged
This however does not work when the topic branch is a fast
forward of the mainline, because normal "git pull" will never
create a merge commit in such a case, and there is nothing
special --no-commit could do to begin with.
This patch introduces a new option, --squash, to support such a
workflow officially in both fast-forward case and true merge
case. The user-level operation would be the same in both cases:
git checkout mainline
git pull --squash . that-topic-branch
: fix conflicts if any -- naturally, there would be
: no conflict if fast forward.
git commit -a -m 'consolidated commit log message'
git branch -f that-topic-branch ;# now fully merged
When the current branch is already up-to-date with respect to
the other branch, there truly is nothing to do, so the new
option does not have any effect.
This was brought up in #git IRC channel recently.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
-p is not needed and we only want diffstat and summary.
Signed-off-by: Timo Hirvonen <tihirvon@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
We said "fix up by hand" after failed automerge, which was a big
"Huh? Now what?". Be a bit more explicit without being too
verbose. Suggested by Carl Worth.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Most notably "ours". Also this makes sure we do not record
duplicated parents on the parent list of the resulting commit.
This is based on Mark Wooding's work, but does not change the UI
nor introduce new flags.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Double click on to current HEAD commit id is not possible,
the dot has to go.
[jc: by popular requests.]
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
This implements "eye candy" similar to the pack-object/unpack-object
to entertain users while a large tree is being checked out after
a clone or a pull.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
"empty ident not allowed" error makes commit-tree fail, so we
are already safer in that we would not end up with commit
objects that have bogus names on the author or committer fields.
However, before commit-tree is called there are already changes
made to the index file and the working tree. The operation can
be resumed after fixing the environment problem, but when this
triggers to a newcomer with unusable gecos, the first question
becomes "what did I lose and how would I recover".
This patch modifies some Porcelainish commands to verify
GIT_COMMITTER_IDENT as soon as we know we are going to make some
commits before doing much damage to prevent confusion.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
In some setups (notably server setups) you do not need that dependency.
Gracefully handle the absence of python when NO_PYTHON is defined.
Signed-off-by: Johannes E. Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
"empty ident not allowed" error makes commit-tree fail, so we
are already safer in that we would not end up with commit
objects that have bogus names on the author or committer fields.
However, before commit-tree is called there are already changes
made to the index file and the working tree. The operation can
be resumed after fixing the environment problem, but when this
triggers to a newcomer with unusable gecos, the first question
becomes "what did I lose and how would I recover".
This patch modifies some Porcelainish commands to verify
GIT_COMMITTER_IDENT as soon as we know we are going to make some
commits before doing much damage to prevent confusion.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Johannes noticed that git-rerere depends on Digest.pm, and if
one does not use the command, one can live without it.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
In a workflow that employs relatively long lived topic branches,
the developer sometimes needs to resolve the same conflict over
and over again until the topic branches are done (either merged
to the "release" branch, or sent out and accepted upstream).
This commit introduces a new command, "git rerere", to help this
process by recording the conflicted automerge results and
corresponding hand-resolve results on the initial manual merge,
and later by noticing the same conflicted automerge and applying
the previously recorded hand resolution using three-way merge.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
The files with conflicts need to be hand resolved, and it is a
good discipline for the committer to explain which branch was
taken and why. Pre-fill the merge message template with the
list of conflicted paths to encourage it.
This is from Linus.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
We did not distinguish the case the user asked not to make a
commit with --no-commit flag and the automerge failed. Tell
these cases apart and phrase dying message differently.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
James Bowes