When would you use the different git merge strateg

Question

From the man page on git-merge, there are a number of merge strategies you can use.

• resolve - This can only resolve two heads (i.e. the current branch and another branch you pulled from) using 3-way merge algorithm. It tries to carefully detect criss-cross merge ambiguities and is considered generally safe and fast.

• recursive - This can only resolve two heads using 3-way merge algorithm. When there are more than one common ancestors that can be used for 3-way merge, it creates a merged tree of the common ancestors and uses that as the reference tree for the 3-way merge. This has been reported to result in fewer merge conflicts without causing mis-merges by tests done on actual merge commits taken from Linux 2.6 kernel development history. Additionally this can detect and handle merges involving renames. This is the default merge strategy when pulling or merging one branch.

• octopus - This resolves more than two-head case, but refuses to do complex merge that needs manual resolution. It is primarily meant to be used for bundling topic branch heads together. This is the default merge strategy when pulling or merging more than one branches.

• ours - This resolves any number of heads, but the result of the merge is always the current branch head. It is meant to be used to supersede old development history of side branches.

• subtree - This is a modified recursive strategy. When merging trees A and B, if B corresponds to a subtree of A, B is first adjusted to match the tree structure of A, instead of reading the trees at the same level. This adjustment is also done to the common ancestor tree.

When should I specify something different than the default? What scenarios are each best for?

Answer 1

I'm not familiar with resolve, but I've used the others:

Recursive

Recursive is the default for non-fast-forward merges. We're all familiar with that one.

Octopus

I've used octopus when I've had several trees that needed to be merged. You see this in larger projects where many branches have had independent development and it's all ready to come together into a single head.

An octopus branch merges multiple heads in one commit as long as it can do it cleanly.

For illustration, imagine you have a project that has a master, and then three branches to merge in (call them a, b, and c).

A series of recursive merges would look like this (note that the first merge was a fast-forward, as I didn't force recursion):

However, a single octopus merge would look like this:

commit ae632e99ba0ccd0e9e06d09e8647659220d043b9
Merge: f51262e... c9ce629... aa0f25d...

Ours

Ours == I want to pull in another head, but throw away all of the changes that head introduces.

This keeps the history of a branch without any of the effects of the branch.

(Read: It is not even looked at the changes between those branches. The branches are just merged and nothing is done to the files. If you want to merge in the other branch and every time there is the question "our file version or their version" you can use git merge -X ours)

Subtree

Subtree is useful when you want to merge in another project into a subdirectory of your current project. Useful when you have a library you don't want to include as a submodule.

Answer 2

Actually the only two strategies you would want to choose are ours if you want to abandon changes brought by branch, but keep the branch in history, and subtree if you are merging independent project into subdirectory of superproject (like 'git-gui' in 'git' repository).

octopus merge is used automatically when merging more than two branches. resolve is here mainly for historical reasons, and for when you are hit by recursive merge strategy corner cases.

Answer 3

"Resolve" vs "Recursive" merge strategy

Recursive is the current default two-head strategy, but after some searching I finally found some info about the "resolve" merge strategy.

Taken from O'Reilly book Version Control with Git (Amazon) (paraphrased):

Originally, "resolve" was the default strategy for Git merges.

In criss-cross merge situations, where there is more than one possible merge basis, the resolve strategy works like this: pick one of the possible merge bases, and hope for the best. This is actually not as bad as it sounds. It often turns out that the users have been working on different parts of the code. In that case, Git detects that it's remerging some changes that are already in place and skips the duplicate changes, avoiding the conflict. Or, if these are slight changes that do cause conflict, at least the conflict should be easy for the developer to handle..

I have successfully merged trees using "resolve" that failed with the default recursive strategy. I was getting fatal: git write-tree failed to write a tree errors, and thanks to this blog post (mirror) I tried "-s resolve", which worked. I'm still not exactly sure why... but I think it was because I had duplicate changes in both trees, and resolve "skipped" them properly.