[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Stupid git!

From: Dmitry Gutov
Subject: Re: Stupid git!
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 16:42:50 +0300
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:41.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/41.0

Hi Alan,

On 09/14/2015 02:09 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

What confused me is that git aborted the merge despite there being no
conflicts (i.e., nothing requiring the use of an editor to resolve).

Indeed, I don't usually see that. Hence my question about --no-commit in your gitconfig.

But others' suggestion that it might be because of 'git add' beforehand is also plausible. I never do that, because it makes little sense.

Yes, it did. Have you done any non-trivial merges before? That's how
they usually look.

No, I've never done a non-trivial merge in git.  This one presumably
must count as a trivial merge.

I any case, a merge with maybe just one tiny conflict, looks similar to this if there are also non-conflicting changes in it: it shows you staged changes from files *you* didn't modify.

I take it that by "shouldn't .. include include .. non-mergy changes"
you mean that when initiating a merge commit, git won't include any
non-merge changes in the commit.  (The alternative interpretation is
that in a merge commit, the user shouldn't include any other changes.)

Kinda both.

It means that you shouldn't 'git add' any changes that you've worked on just now, before committing. Leave them for a following, non-merge commit.

I did actually have this log entry, but `git log' didn't display it.
The flag --all was needed for that.

Apparently, you will be able to see the log entries for the commits you're merging, after you conclude the merge, and so the current branch includes them. Makes sense, doesn't it?

OK, I've got it now.  For some reason, git choses to abort the merge,
despite there being no conflicts between the changes from upstream and
the changes I've committed locally - indeed, to complete the merge is a
fully mechanical action, `git commit'.  This seeming illogicality is
what confused me in the first place.

I agree.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]