Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Revert "Merge upstream changes that have occurred since the fork (#59)" #60

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 31, 2023

Conversation

nagisa
Copy link
Collaborator

@nagisa nagisa commented Oct 31, 2023

This reverts commit 0402edd.

The final result in the main branch did not retain the merge commit, so trying to merge the upstream/main again now produces significant conflicts even though they should not be present.

This reverts commit 0402edd.

The final result in the main branch did not retain the merge commit, so
trying to merge the `upstream/main` again now produces significant
conflicts even though they should not be present.
@nagisa nagisa requested a review from MCJOHN974 October 31, 2023 12:33
@nagisa
Copy link
Collaborator Author

nagisa commented Oct 31, 2023

cc @Ekleog-NEAR this is an interesting case where merge queue setup fails spectacularly.

So originally I PRd a merge commit, pulling in bytecodealliance/wasmtime:main changes since the last fork. Then the merge queue "squashed" and "normalized" everything which caused this merge commit to instead become this humongous +100k,-100k commit. And now when I try merging again, it fails with a crapton of conflicts, because the only common base commit git sees with the bytecodealliance/wasmtime:main is the original base, and this +100k,-100k commit introduces a crapload of conflicts :D

@nagisa nagisa enabled auto-merge October 31, 2023 12:36
@Ekleog-NEAR
Copy link

@nagisa TBH I never understood why we squash-and-merge. This is already temporarily disabled on nearcore (because of the TOCTOU issue with reviews, see the bp issue thread on zulip), and it uses a merge commit there. I guess switching to merge commit everywhere might make sense for the reason you mention :)

@nagisa nagisa added this pull request to the merge queue Oct 31, 2023
@nagisa
Copy link
Collaborator Author

nagisa commented Oct 31, 2023

TBH I never understood why we squash-and-merge.

Linear history in the main branch is pretty darn nice.

Merged via the queue into main with commit 89da0ab Oct 31, 2023
28 checks passed
@nagisa nagisa deleted the nagisa/unmerges-upstream branch October 31, 2023 13:38
@Ekleog-NEAR
Copy link

Linear history in the main branch is pretty darn nice.

I mean there’s git log --first-parent, git bisect --first-parent, and AFAICT basically all git commands have a way to ignore the branches and treat the merges as though they were squash-merges

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants