Johannes Schindelin <> writes:

> So essentially, what your cherry-pick'able commits are is a way to store
> what rerere would have stored (i.e. the set of merge conflicts together
> with their resolution)?

If rerere would have stored, I wouldn't have separate band-aid
system on top.  These fix-up commits are usually on parts that do
not get involved in textual conflicts; "rerere" which relies on
having textual conflicts (the "shape" of the text in the conflicted
region is what lets "rerere" index into its database to find the
recorded resolution) wouldn't have stored them and that is

> If so, what tooling do you have to identify quickly what to cherry-pick,
> given merge conflicts?

It exactly is the issue I've been trying to find ideal solution for
quite a while and not successfully.  Here is a sample thread

and every message I mention "merge-fix" is relevant.

The current band-aid system punts and indexes the merge-fix changes
by merely a branch name.  When refs/merge-fix/X exists, what it
means is "When branch X is merged to an integration branch, it is
likely that the integration branch _already_ has merged an unnamed
topic that causes semantic conflicts and requires this fix-up".
This needs occasional manual adjustment---e.g. when the topic X
turns out to be a lot more stable than the other topic Y that was
causing us trouble with semantic conflicts, I may at some point
reorder the topics and have topic X advance to 'next' before topic Y
does.  And when that happens, when I merge X to 'next', because Y is
not yet in 'next', I shouldn't apply refs/merge-fix/X (often, an
attempt to cherry-pick it on top of a merge of X into 'next' would
fail, which would be a bit of safety, but not always).  What I
should do instead is to rename refs/merge-fix/X to refs/merge-fix/Y
immediately before merging X to 'next', so that the cherry-pick is
not applied.  When rebuilding 'master'->'jch'->'pu' chain, X (now in
'next') will be merged before Y (not in 'next') gets merged, and
when it is Y's turn to be merged, the merge-fix I used to apply when
merging topic X will be applied.

In the ideal world (I think I'm repeating the ideas raised in the
thread quoted), the merge-fix database should be indexed with a pair
of commit object names (e.g. a step in branch X that adds a new
callsite for function frotz() and a step in branch Y that changes
the function signature of frotz()), and teach the system to
cherry-pick refs/merge-fix/A-B to resolve semantic conflicts, when
both commits A and B appears in the integration branch for the first
time.  And make sure these are kept up-to-date across rebasing of
commits A and B.  After rebasing the topics X and Y that contained
the commits A and B, if they became C and D, the system somehow
needs to be able to locate the previous merge-fix that was valid for
A-B pair when C-D pair gets merged.

Reply via email to