Re: Subtree mergeinfo -- what I learnt at the Hackathon
From: Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_btopenworld.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 21:16:59 +0100 (BST)
To move forward and decide what behaviour is right, we need to be able to compare the 1.7 behaviour with the proposed behaviour in *specific* scenarios. So we need to be able to enumerate the specific scenarios that we mean by the general term "merging with subtree mergeinfo". This is what I am doing currently.
The twist is that the best way to enumerate all the possibilities for 1.7 merges, and the best way to enumerate all the possibilities for an ideal symmetric merge, are different. For example, the 1.7 non-reintegrate merge (let's say from branch A to branch B) doesn't look at any mergeinfo indicating merges from B to A, so the primary way to categorize those cases is by their last complete A->B merge (of the root of the merge, and of a subtree). B->A merges can also affect the result if performed after the last A->B merge, so we categorize secondarily by their B->A mergeinfo. By contrast, an ideal symmetric merge only cares about the last complete merge (A->B or B->A); any earlier merges in the other direction make no difference at all.
After separately enumerating the 1.7 cases and the (ideal) symmetric merge cases, we can split or combine categories as necessary to merge these cases into a single list. Then we can decide what constitutes "same" or "backward-compatible" behaviour in each case. Don't be suspicious -- I'm not trying to twist the word "compatible" to mean something else -- rather, what I mean is that not all of the possible scenarios are ones in which the 1.7 behaviour is "good". For example, we know that in 1.7 if the last complete merge was A->B (in r10, say) and then you reintegrate a subtree (B/foo -> A/foo in r20), then try to sync A->B again, Subversion will not notice that r20 merge and will attempt to re-merge r19:20 of A/foo into B/foo, which "works" only in rather trivial cases (due to auto-resolving of some types of duplicate change) and I trust we can agree it is in general wrong.
So far, I've only been compiling this categorization from my head; the next step is to write tests to confirm or correct this.
CATEGORIZING SUBTREE MERGES
For the purposes of this categorization, we consider:
* The merging history of the root 'R' (the root node of the requested merge source and target trees), and of a subtree 'S' (a single node or subtree whose merging history differs from that of the root node in a significant way). Only one subtree is considered; multiple subtrees are assumed to be handled independently, even if they are nested (such as root 'A', subtree 'A/D' whose history differs from 'A', and subtree 'A/D/foo' whose history differs from 'A/D').
* The "last complete merge" of the Root (in one or both directions), and the "last complete merge" of the Subtree (in one or both directions). The "last complete merge" in direction A->B means the last revision R for which all revisions on A, up to and including R, are (currently) recorded as having been merged from A to B. This state could have been reached through any kind of merge or sequence of merges; all that matters is what the current mergeinfo says has been merged.
* There is an assumption that the actual content changes were in fact merged in accordance with what the mergeinfo says, subject to any editing that was required to resolve any conflicts detected by the merge process and any semantic conflicts.
CATEGORIZING SUBTREE MERGES: 1.7 Non-Reintegrate
These cases are for a reintegrate merge A->B.
In each row of this table, up to two Root merges are indicated, and their relative ordering is significant; similarly for Subtree merges. The ordering of R merges relative to S merges is not significant.
Root | Subtree | Behaviour
Example: Row 9 represents the case where the Root's last complete merge was in the B->A direction, and its last complete A->B merge was earlier or never; and the Subtree likewise. The root's last complete merge was before or after but not the same as the subtree's.
CATEGORIZING SUBTREE MERGES: 1.7 Reintegrate
These cases are for a reintegrate merge B->A.
Treat this table as just a rough first draft for now; I'm not sure if this is the best way to categorize the reintegrate cases, and I need to investigate this more thoroughly and test it.
Root | Subtree | Behaviour
CATEGORIZING SUBTREE MERGES: Ideal Symmetric Merge
Now we consider the ideal symmetric merge (not what's currently implemented).
This is primarily concerned with the last complete merge of the root, in whichever direction that was, and similarly the last complete merge of the subtree. The (earlier) last complete merge of the root in the other direction is not significant, nor is that of the subtree.
Root | Subtree | Ideal behaviour
I'm working on integarting these tables, and also on writing tests (or rather scenarios using the test suite framework).
Please let me know if this seems like the approach we need, or any other thoughts.
-- Certified & Supported Apache Subversion Downloads: http://www.wandisco.com/subversion/download I (Julian Foad) wrote: > [...] I'm not at all demanding we break backward > compatibility. Sorry if it sounded like it. I'm just saying that > we're proposing to change the behaviour of the plain merge command, > and in doing that we need to work out what the details of the new > behaviour will be, and this thread is helping us to do just that. > I ended up with a bias towards trying to move toward a more rename- > friendly approach, but I recognise we can't get there yet so the > "follow each node's own ancestry" idea is just an idea for the > future. We need a simpler approach for now. > > Stefan Sperling wrote: [...] >> Agreed. Ideally, the symmetric merge will support all currently supported >> use cases, without throwing errors at users or requiring new command-line >> switches. >> >> I haven't yet made up my mind about interim measures for 1.8 though. >> I suppose if symmetric merge won't support all currently supported use cases >> in 1.8, we could keep the --symmetric option in place for 1.8, and drop it >> in 1.9 or later once the symmetric merge code can handle all use cases?Received on 2012-07-09 22:17:34 CEST
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.