A mercurial merge chose the wrong changes, what is the correct way to fix this?

Changes were made to our .vcproj to fix an issue on the build machine (changeset 1700). Later, a developer merged his changes (changes 1710 through 1715) into the trunk, but the mercurial auto-merge overwrote the changes from 1700. I assume this happened because he chose the wrong branch as the "parent" of the merge (see part 2 of the question).

1) What is the "correct" mercurial way to fix this issue, considering out of all the merged files, only one file was merged incorrectly, and

2) what should the developer have done differently in order to make sure this didn't occur? Are there ways we can enforce the "correct" way?

Edit: I probably wasn't clear enough on what happened. Developer A modified a line in our .vcproj file that removed an option for the compiler. His check-in became changeset 1700. Developer B, working from a previous parent (let's say changeset 1690), made some changes to completely different parts of the project, but he did touch the .vcproj file (just not anywhere near the changes made by Developer A). When Developer B merged his changes (becoming changes 1710 through 1715), the merge process overwrote the changes from 1700.

To fix this, I just re-modified the .vcproj file to include the change again, and checked it in. I just wanted to know why Mercurial thought that it shouldn't keep the changes in 1700, and whether or not there was an "official" way to fix this.

Edit 开发者_如何学Pythonthe second: Developer B swears up and down that Mercurial merged the .vcproj file without prompting him for conflict resolution, but it is of course possible that he's just misremembering, in which case this whole exercise is academic.

---

I will address the 2nd part of you question first...

If there is a conflict, the automated merge tools should force the programmer to decide how the merge happens. But the general assumption is that a conflict will involve two edits to the same set of lines. If somehow a conflict arises because of edits to lines that are not close to each other the automated merge will blithely choose both of the edits and a bug will appear.

The general case of a merge tool always merging properly is very hard to solve, and really can't be with current technology. Here is an example of what I mean from C:

int i;  // Someone replaces this with 'short i' in one changeset stating
        // that a short is more efficient.

// ...  lots of code;

// Someone else replaces all the 65000s with 100000s in another changeset,
// saying that more precision is needed.
for (i = 0; i < 65000; ++i) {
    integral_approximation_piece(start + i/65000.0, end + (i + 1) / 65000.0);
}

No merge tool is going to catch this kind of conflict. The tool would have to actually compile the code to see that those two parts of the code have anything to do with eachother, and while that would likely be enough in this case, I can construct an example that would require the code to be run and the results examined to catch the conflict.

This means that what you really ought to do is rigorously test your code after a merge, just like you should after any other change. The vast majority of merges will result in obvious conflicts that a developer will have to resolve (even though that resolution is often fairly obvious), or will merge cleanly. But the very few merges that don't fit either category can't easily be handled in an automated fashion.

This can also be fixed by development practices that encourage locality. For example a coding standard that states "Variables should be declared near where they're used.".

I'm guessing that .vcproj files are particularly prone to this problem since they are not well understood by developers and so if conflicts do appear they will not be sure what to do with them. My guess is that this happened and your developer simply did a revert back to the revision (s)he checked in.

As for part 1...

What to do in this case depends a lot on your development process. You can either strip the merge changeset out and redo it, though that won't work very well if lots of people have already pulled it, and it will work especially poorly if there are lots of changesets that have already been checked in that are based on the merge changeset.

You can also check in a new change that fixes the problem with the merge.

Those are basically your two options.

The tone of your post seems to me to indicate that you may have some politics surrounding this issue in your organization, and people are blaming this error on the frequent merges of Mercurial. So I will point out that any change control system can have this problem. In the case of Subversion, for example, every time a developer does an update while they have outstanding changes in their working directory, they are doing a merge, and this kind of problem can arise with any merge.

---

In mercurial a merge doesn't have a single parent, it by definition has two and only two parents. When someone is merging they're making two choices:

1. What two changesets will constitute the two changes
2. Which of those changesets will be the left-parent and which will be the right-parent

Of those two questions the first is very important, and the second barely matters at all, though it took me a while to come to understand that.

You select the left-parent by using hg update X. That changes the output of hg parents (or in newer versions hg summary) and essentially determines what's in your working directory before the merge.

You select the right-parent by using hg merge Y. That says merge X (the working directory's parent) with changeset Y. As a special case, if there are only two heads in your repository and your parent is already one of them then Y will default to the the other.

I'd have to see your resulting graph to know just what the developer did, but it's possible he didn't update to one head or another before invoking merge, which would have him merging one head with some point back in history.

If your developer picked the right parents for the merge then the left vs. right doesn't much matter -- the only real difference is that when one uses hg diff or hg log -p or some other command that shows the patch for a merge changeset, it's displayed relative to the left-parent. That's, however, mostly a factor in display only. Functionally they're pretty much identical.

Assuming your developer picked the right changesets then what he should have done was test the result of the merge before committing it. Merging is software development, not an annoying VCS side effect, and not testing before committing is the error.

Fixing

To fix this, just re-do the merge correctly. Use hg update to set one parent, use hg merge to pick the other. Make sure your current working directory is correct and then commit. You can get rid of his bad merge using something like hg strip or better, just close down his branch with hg commit --close-branch after updating to it.

Avoiding

You say "mercurial auto-merge", but mercurial doesn't really auto-merge. It does a premerge which is an extremely cautious combination of obvious changes, but it's so careful it won't even merge for you if each merge parent adds code in the same region because it can't know which block of code you'd rather have first.

You can disable this premerge entirely or on a file-by-file basis using the merge tool configuration options:

https://www.mercurial-scm.org/wiki/MergeToolConfiguration?highlight=premerge