On Friday 11 June 2010, Heiko Voigt wrote:
quoted text
> The following patch series is a work in progress. The idea is whenever
> you need to merge two SHA1's of a submodule we search for a ref in the
> submodule which already contains both. If one such ref exists the
> resulting SHA1 is the one pointed at by that ref.

I appreciate the effort to improve submodule handling, but I'm not sure I 
like this approach. Even though you try to apply it as conservatively as 
possible, it still smells a little like trying to make Git too clever for 
its own good.

E.g. say we have the following commit history in the submodule:

  A---B---C---D  <-- master

Now, say that your merge conflict comes from one branch updating the 
submodule from B to C, while the other branch reverts the submodule from B 
to A. In your proposed scheme, Git would auto-resolve the conflict to D.

In this case Git has no way of knowing whether the update from B to C is 
"better" than the revert from B to A. Maybe the revert to A happened because 
there is a showstopper bug in B that has not yet been fixed, and the best 
solution is to revert to A until a fix can be made. Or maybe C fixes that 
showstopper bug, so C is safe after all.

In any case, fast-forwarding to D seems irresponsible, since we have no 
concept of how well D is tested. Maybe it introduces another showstopper 
bug, and that is why neither branch has upgraded to it yet?

This whole idea is somewhat similar to branch-tracking submodules (recently 
discussed in another thread), except that it only applies on _merge_ in the 
superproject, and you don't get to choose _which_ branch it's tracking. 
That's _way_ too arbitrary for my tastes.

quoted text
> The implementation currently searches through all refs and if one (and
> only one) ref exists which contains both sides it merges. In all other
> cases it fails.

Still doesn't solve the fundamental A---B---C---D problem I demonstrated 
above.

quoted text
> Future Plans:
> 
>   * Only search stable branches. E.g. by default only master and
>     */master. The stable branch list will be configurable.

What is this "stable" branch of which you speak? "Stable" is a very relative 
concept, depending on which repo you're working in, and which branch you're 
working on. In any case, master is often not the most stable branch in a 
given repo. In git.git for example, maint is more stable than master. Also, 
I have many repos where master should not be considered "stable" at all...


...Johan

-- 
Johan Herland, <johan@herland.net>
www.herland.net
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html