You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
Repository navigation
Benchmark runners may commit results that contain merge conflicts #323
However, the approach that we're using doesn't work. It looks like -X ours doesn't apply to resolving merge conflicts that result from applying stashed changes. I verified this locally by:
Creating a new repo containing a single markdown file.
Cloning the repo into a new directory.
Editing the markdown file in a way that would generate a merge conflict.
Ran git pull -s recursive -X ours --autostash --rebase. The merge conflicts are left for resolution.
I'm not sure if this is a behavior that changed in git recently. I've tested this using git versions 2.39.5 and 2.47.1.
It would be pretty invasive to use a unique name for each job -- plus it's occasionally useful to re-run a job that failed for some external reason (e.g. a network outage) and replace any existing results.
I wonder if there is a magic incantation that would always replace any upstream changes (e.g. like this line but that actually works). I'll poke around and see if I can find something that works...
Activity
mpage commentedon Dec 23, 2024
@mdboom - How large/invasive of a change would it be to store the results for each job in a unique file?
mdboom commentedon Jan 3, 2025
It would be pretty invasive to use a unique name for each job -- plus it's occasionally useful to re-run a job that failed for some external reason (e.g. a network outage) and replace any existing results.
I wonder if there is a magic incantation that would always replace any upstream changes (e.g. like this line but that actually works). I'll poke around and see if I can find something that works...
Fix #323: Always accept local changes to resolve merge conflicts
Merge pull request #325 from faster-cpython/handle-merge-conflicts
Revert "Fix #323: Always accept local changes to resolve merge confli…
Merge pull request #328 from faster-cpython/revert-325-handle-merge-c…
mdboom commentedon Jan 9, 2025
Ugh, the solution I arrived at broke on Windows... Back to the drawing board for a bit.