Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2024 04:47:45 -0600 From: Unit Runker <unitrunker@gmail.com> To: freebsd-git@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Force merge conflicts? Message-ID: <1a6cf9f5-73b1-4ad5-a6d6-efaa72f5a193@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CANCZdfpL3oLTCky=xrSGcvzzn=NfX03LSf4Jm8cf=b45z01Mgw@mail.gmail.com> References: <Za_SdBnXJkerj8gF@lorvorc.mips.inka.de> <e53efg54xnxf44gzgmidbg2xt2l44nzmhyf3mxyf5q7znpptwy@3dujcp225dnm> <CANCZdfpL3oLTCky=xrSGcvzzn=NfX03LSf4Jm8cf=b45z01Mgw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --]
Hello all;
On 1/23/2024 3:51 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 11:20 AM Mathieu Arnold <mat@freebsd.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 03:51:32PM +0100, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> > Is there a way to tell git to create a conflict when two branches
> > have the same change?
>
> I had a look and Git conflicts' resolution does not seem to be able to
> do that. For Git, when you merge two files that have the same change,
> then it assumes that it is the same change and is happy with it.
>
> For the case you are talking about, I would either:
>
> - Defer the PORTREVISION bump to when the branch is ready to be
> merged,
> and automate it with one of the scripts in Tools.
> - Bump PORTREVISON and add a comment on the same line with, say,
> `# TODO: remove me` so that it forces a conflict to arise and
> mechanically remove them before merging.
>
>
> Personally, I'd set PORTREVISION to 100 in the branch and merge often.
> Who says that
> the first bump has to be to 1? If you really want it to be the
> numerically next number, bump
> it each time there's a conflict, (so 101, 102, 103) then you can look
> for those > 100 and
> re-adjust. If this has been done before, start at 200, etc. Since
> there's nothing wrong with 100,
> though, you could do this and land it like that in the main tree.
>
> It's a different variation on the force a conflict ploy though
>
> Warner
An alternative: don't touch the PORTREVISION until your PR is ready to
be merged. You can merge all day long and not cause a conflict on this
one line.
[-- Attachment #2 --]
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Hello all;<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/23/2024 3:51 PM, Warner Losh
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CANCZdfpL3oLTCky=xrSGcvzzn=NfX03LSf4Jm8cf=b45z01Mgw@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 11:20 AM Mathieu Arnold
<<a href="mailto:mat@freebsd.org" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">mat@freebsd.org</a>> wrote:</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On
Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 03:51:32PM +0100, Christian Weisgerber
wrote:<br>
> Is there a way to tell git to create a conflict when
two branches<br>
> have the same change?<br>
<br>
I had a look and Git conflicts' resolution does not seem to
be able to<br>
do that. For Git, when you merge two files that have the
same change,<br>
then it assumes that it is the same change and is happy with
it.<br>
<br>
For the case you are talking about, I would either:<br>
<br>
- Defer the PORTREVISION bump to when the branch is ready to
be merged,<br>
and automate it with one of the scripts in Tools.<br>
- Bump PORTREVISON and add a comment on the same line with,
say,<br>
`# TODO: remove me` so that it forces a conflict to arise
and<br>
mechanically remove them before merging.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Personally, I'd set PORTREVISION to 100 in the branch and
merge often. Who says that</div>
<div>the first bump has to be to 1? If you really want it to
be the numerically next number, bump</div>
<div>it each time there's a conflict, (so 101, 102, 103) then
you can look for those > 100 and</div>
<div>re-adjust. If this has been done before, start at 200,
etc. Since there's nothing wrong with 100,</div>
<div>though, you could do this and land it like that in the
main tree.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It's a different variation on the force a conflict ploy
though<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Warner<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>An alternative: don't touch the PORTREVISION until your PR is
ready to be merged. You can merge all day long and not cause a
conflict on this one line.<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1a6cf9f5-73b1-4ad5-a6d6-efaa72f5a193>