Re: rebase preserve-merges: incorrect merge commits
- Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 17:32:57 +0100 (STD)
- From: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: rebase preserve-merges: incorrect merge commits
On Mon, 8 Jan 2018, Matwey V. Kornilov wrote:
> 2018-01-08 17:42 GMT+03:00 Matwey V. Kornilov <matwey.kornilov@xxxxxxxxx>:
> > 2018-01-08 16:56 GMT+03:00 Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx>:
> >> Hi Matwey,
> >> On Mon, 8 Jan 2018, Matwey V. Kornilov wrote:
> >>> I think that rebase preserve-merges algorithm needs further
> >>> improvements. Probably, you already know it.
> >> Yes. preserve-merges is a fundamentally flawed design.
> >> Please have a look here:
> >> https://github.com/git/git/pull/447
> >> Since we are in a feature freeze in preparation for v2.16.0, I will
> >> submit these patch series shortly after v2.16.0 is released.
> >>> As far as I understand the root cause of this that when new merge
> >>> commit is created by rebase it is done simply by git merge
> >>> $new_parents without taking into account any actual state of the
> >>> initial merge commit.
> >> Indeed. preserve-merges does not allow commits to be reordered. (Actually,
> >> it *does* allow it, but then fails to handle it correctly.) We even have
> >> test cases that mark this as "known breakage".
> >> But really, I do not think it is worth trying to fix the broken design.
> >> Better to go with the new recreate-merges. (I am biased, of course,
> >> because I invented recreate-merges. But then, I also invented
> >> preserve-merges, so ...)
> > Well. I just checked --recreate-merges=no-rebase-cousins from the PR
> > and found that it produces the same wrong result in my test example.
> > The topology is reproduced correctly, but merge-commit content is
> > broken.
> > I did git rebase --recreate-merges=no-rebase-cousins --onto abc-0.1 v0.1 abc-0.2
> Indeed, exactly as you still say in the documentation: "Merge conflict
> resolutions or manual amendments to merge commits are not preserved."
> My initial point is that they have to be preserved. Probably in
> recreate-merges, if preserve-merges is discontinued.
Ah, but that is consistent with how non-merge-preserving rebase works: the
`pick` commands *also* do not record merge conflict resolution...