Adding upstream version 1:2.43.0.upstream/1%2.43.0

Signed-off-by: Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-linux.org>

1 files changed, 186 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/technical/rerere.txt b/Documentation/technical/rerere.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..580f233
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/technical/rerere.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,186 @@
+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` or `zdiff3` conflict styles.  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 or zdiff3
+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 with 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, let's 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 became 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 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.
+
+Note that this only works for conflict markers that "cleanly nest".  If
+there are any unmatched conflict markers, rerere will fail to handle
+the conflict and record a conflict resolution.
+
+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>')`