git pull failed: CONFLICT

[Sascha Hauer]

On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 09:19:14AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello Antony,
> 
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 11:02:06PM +0400, Antony Pavlov wrote:
> > As usual as usual I tried to pull next branch from
> > git://git.pengutronix.de/git/barebox, but got error message.
> > 
> > $ git checkout next$ git pullremote: Counting objects: 287,
> > done.remote: Compressing objects: 100% (121/121), done.remote: Total
> > 193 (delta 164), reused 85 (delta 67)Receiving objects: 100%
> > (193/193), 22.10 KiB, done.Resolving deltas: 100% (164/164), completed
> > with 69 local objects.From git://git.pengutronix.de/git/barebox +
> > 5c6b5d4...5f77a0a next       -> origin/next  (forced update) +
> > f4a3223...841b071 work/omap3 -> origin/work/omap3  (forced update) +
> > 5c50a9a...0233427 work/thumb2 -> origin/work/thumb2  (forced
> > update)Auto-merging common/KconfigCONFLICT (content): Merge conflict
> > in common/KconfigRemoving arch/arm/mach-omap/omap3_platform.SRemoving
> > arch/arm/mach-omap/omap3_clock_core.SRemoving
> > arch/arm/mach-omap/include/mach/board.hRemoving
> > arch/arm/boards/phycard-a-l1/lowlevel.cAuto-merging MakefileCONFLICT
> > (content): Merge conflict in MakefileAutomatic merge failed; fix
> > conflicts and then commit the result.
> As Sascha rewrote the next branch pulling makes your tree base on the
> old and the new next branch. You want to do:
> 
> 	git remote update origin
> 	git rebase --onto origin/next origin/next@{1}
> 
> assuming your tree based on the version of origin/next before you
> git remote updated.

I don't like non fastforward updates, but it happens *very* often that
some new patch I apply to the next branch breaks something. Often enough
a fix for this comes before I merge the next branch into master. It
would be nice if this breakage would not even arrive in master. For this
I have to squash the fix into the original patch. That is why I decided
for a non fastforward push this time. I understand that this is not nice
for people following this branch.

I'm thinking about dropping the next branch and start providing next tags
instead, just like the Kernel does. It would mean more workload for me,
but I think we'll get a more bisectable master.

Sascha


-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |