pocelain does not merge updates into working trees

[Salamafet]

When a file is removed from repository, the dulwich.pull command does not remove the file from local storage.

When I add a file in repository, the file is correctly downloaded.

I have try with admin right but doesn't work.

[jelmer]

On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 06:49:26AM -0700, Stéphane wrote:

When a file is removed from repository, the dulwich.pull command does not remove the file from local storage.

When I add a file in repository, the file is correctly downloaded.

I have try with admin right but doesn't work.

Dulwich currently doesn't do any merging, including merges that affect the working tree.

[sheluchin]

Dulwich currently doesn't do any merging, including merges that affect the working tree.

@jelmer Is this still the case?

[jelmer]

Yes, this limitation still exists. I'm keen to get this fixed before 0.20.

…

On 23 January 2019 15:51:13 GMT, Alex Sheluchin ***@***.***> wrote: > Dulwich currently doesn't do any merging, including merges that _affect_ the working tree. @jelmer Is this still the case? -- You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: #452 (comment)

-- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

[laneb]

"Merge" here refers to the update to WD+index after a clean merge, checkout, etc., correct? I.e. the WD+index reflected tree T₀ and we want to update WD+index to reflect T₁. I think this operation can be implemented naively as

1. Assert index matches T₀
2. Assert T₁ contains no blob at the same path as an untracked file in WD
3. Remove all files tracked in T₀ from WD
4. Write all files tracked in T₁ to WD
5. Rebuild index from T₁

@jelmer Does that seem correct? Not sure what the gotchas here are.

[jelmer]

No, it refers to a three-way merge. You're describing a fast-forward operation, which would also be useful to implement but is different.

[laneb]

Oh duh 🤦‍♂️Yes I was only considering the fast-forward scenario. Makes sense that WD cannot be updated until after 3-way merge. Once that's complete and the ref is updated to point to the merge commit, the operation I described can be applied.

[jelmer]

The merge has to be applied in the working directory, rather than as a commit. This is because there can be conflicts.

…

On 22 February 2019 01:39:15 GMT-08:00, Lane Barlow ***@***.***> wrote: Oh duh 🤦‍♂️Yes I was only considering the fast-forward scenario. Makes sense that WD cannot be updated until after 3-way merge. Once that's complete and the ref is updated to point to the merge commit, the operation I can be applied. > > -- > You are receiving this because you were mentioned.> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:> #452 (comment)

[kevinhendricks]

Is there any update on this? Would it help in any way to take the Sigil dulwich repo with its preliminary merge code from about 2 years ago and update it to current dulwich? Is there anything I can do to help get basic merge working the way you want?