diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation')
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/technical/rerere.txt | 182 |
1 files changed, 182 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/technical/rerere.txt b/Documentation/technical/rerere.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..e65ba9b0c6 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/technical/rerere.txt @@ -0,0 +1,182 @@ +Rerere +====== + +This document describes the rerere logic. + +Conflict normalization +---------------------- + +To ensure recorded conflict resolutions can be looked up in the rerere +database, even when branches are merged in a different order, +different branches are merged that result in the same conflict, or +when different conflict style settings are used, rerere normalizes the +conflicts before writing them to the rerere database. + +Different conflict styles and branch names are normalized by stripping +the labels from the conflict markers, and removing the common ancestor +version from the `diff3` conflict style. Branches that are merged +in different order are normalized by sorting the conflict hunks. More +on each of those steps in the following sections. + +Once these two normalization operations are applied, a conflict ID is +calculated based on the normalized conflict, which is later used by +rerere to look up the conflict in the rerere database. + +Removing the common ancestor version +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + +Say we have three branches AB, AC and AC2. The common ancestor of +these branches has a file with a line containing the string "A" (for +brevity this is called "line A" in the rest of the document). In +branch AB this line is changed to "B", in AC, this line is changed to +"C", and branch AC2 is forked off of AC, after the line was changed to +"C". + +Forking a branch ABAC off of branch AB and then merging AC into it, we +get a conflict like the following: + + <<<<<<< HEAD + B + ======= + C + >>>>>>> AC + +Doing the analogous with AC2 (forking a branch ABAC2 off of branch AB +and then merging branch AC2 into it), using the diff3 conflict style, +we get a conflict like the following: + + <<<<<<< HEAD + B + ||||||| merged common ancestors + A + ======= + C + >>>>>>> AC2 + +By resolving this conflict, to leave line D, the user declares: + + After examining what branches AB and AC did, I believe that making + line A into line D is the best thing to do that is compatible with + what AB and AC wanted to do. + +As branch AC2 refers to the same commit as AC, the above implies that +this is also compatible what AB and AC2 wanted to do. + +By extension, this means that rerere should recognize that the above +conflicts are the same. To do this, the labels on the conflict +markers are stripped, and the common ancestor version is removed. The above +examples would both result in the following normalized conflict: + + <<<<<<< + B + ======= + C + >>>>>>> + +Sorting hunks +~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + +As before, lets imagine that a common ancestor had a file with line A +its early part, and line X in its late part. And then four branches +are forked that do these things: + + - AB: changes A to B + - AC: changes A to C + - XY: changes X to Y + - XZ: changes X to Z + +Now, forking a branch ABAC off of branch AB and then merging AC into +it, and forking a branch ACAB off of branch AC and then merging AB +into it, would yield the conflict in a different order. The former +would say "A became B or C, what now?" while the latter would say "A +became C or B, what now?" + +As a reminder, the act of merging AC into ABAC and resolving the +conflict to leave line D means that the user declares: + + After examining what branches AB and AC did, I believe that + making line A into line D is the best thing to do that is + compatible with what AB and AC wanted to do. + +So the conflict we would see when merging AB into ACAB should be +resolved the same way---it is the resolution that is in line with that +declaration. + +Imagine that similarly previously a branch XYXZ was forked from XY, +and XZ was merged into it, and resolved "X became Y or Z" into "X +became W". + +Now, if a branch ABXY was forked from AB and then merged XY, then ABXY +would have line B in its early part and line Y in its later part. +Such a merge would be quite clean. We can construct 4 combinations +using these four branches ((AB, AC) x (XY, XZ)). + +Merging ABXY and ACXZ would make "an early A became B or C, a late X +became Y or Z" conflict, while merging ACXY and ABXZ would make "an +early A became C or B, a late X became Y or Z". We can see there are +4 combinations of ("B or C", "C or B") x ("X or Y", "Y or X"). + +By sorting, the conflict is given its canonical name, namely, "an +early part became B or C, a late part becames X or Y", and whenever +any of these four patterns appear, and we can get to the same conflict +and resolution that we saw earlier. + +Without the sorting, we'd have to somehow find a previous resolution +from combinatorial explosion. + +Conflict ID calculation +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + +Once the conflict normalization is done, the conflict ID is calculated +as the sha1 hash of the conflict hunks appended to each other, +separated by <NUL> characters. The conflict markers are stripped out +before the sha1 is calculated. So in the example above, where we +merge branch AC which changes line A to line C, into branch AB, which +changes line A to line C, the conflict ID would be +SHA1('B<NUL>C<NUL>'). + +If there are multiple conflicts in one file, the sha1 is calculated +the same way with all hunks appended to each other, in the order in +which they appear in the file, separated by a <NUL> character. + +Nested conflicts +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + +Nested conflicts are handled very similarly to "simple" conflicts. +Similar to simple conflicts, the conflict is first normalized by +stripping the labels from conflict markers, stripping the common ancestor +version, and the sorting the conflict hunks, both for the outer and the +inner conflict. This is done recursively, so any number of nested +conflicts can be handled. + +The only difference is in how the conflict ID is calculated. For the +inner conflict, the conflict markers themselves are not stripped out +before calculating the sha1. + +Say we have the following conflict for example: + + <<<<<<< HEAD + 1 + ======= + <<<<<<< HEAD + 3 + ======= + 2 + >>>>>>> branch-2 + >>>>>>> branch-3~ + +After stripping out the labels of the conflict markers, and sorting +the hunks, the conflict would look as follows: + + <<<<<<< + 1 + ======= + <<<<<<< + 2 + ======= + 3 + >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> + +and finally the conflict ID would be calculated as: +`sha1('1<NUL><<<<<<<\n3\n=======\n2\n>>>>>>><NUL>')` |