wip experiment merge

[topbloke-formulae.git] / article.tex

diff --git a/article.tex b/article.tex
index f8acb2260ffcf7898dd228718269b1efe9f40447..fde6e2f5cccd274528791679a0be616000352cca 100644 (file)
--- a/article.tex
+++ b/article.tex
@@ -32,6 +32,10 @@
 \newcommand{\py}{\pay{P}}
 \newcommand{\pn}{\pan{P}}
 
+\newcommand{\pr}{\pa{R}}
+\newcommand{\pry}{\pay{R}}
+\newcommand{\prn}{\pan{R}}
+
 %\newcommand{\hasparents}{\underaccent{1}{>}}
 %\newcommand{\hasparents}{{%
 %  \declareslashed{}{_{_1}}{0}{-0.8}{>}\slashed{>}}}
@@ -45,9 +49,11 @@
 
 \newcommand{\pancs}{{\mathcal A}}
 \newcommand{\pends}{{\mathcal E}}
+\newcommand{\merge}{{\mathcal M}}
 
 \newcommand{\pancsof}[2]{\pancs ( #1 , #2 ) }
 \newcommand{\pendsof}[2]{\pends ( #1 , #2 ) }
+\newcommand{\mergeof}[3]{\merge ( #1 , #2, #3 ) }
 
 \newcommand{\patchof}[1]{{\mathcal P} ( #1 ) }
 \newcommand{\baseof}[1]{{\mathcal B} ( #1 ) }
@@ -142,6 +148,15 @@ patch is applied to a non-Topbloke branch and then bubbles back to
 the Topbloke patch itself, we hope that git's merge algorithm will
 DTRT or that the user will no longer care about the Topbloke patch.
 
+\item[ $ \mergeof{L}{M}{R} $ ]
+$\displaystyle \left\{ C \middle|
+  \begin{cases}
+    (D \isin L \land D \isin R) \lor D = C : & \true \\
+    (D \not\isin L \land D \not\isin R) \land D \neq C : & \false \\
+    \text{otherwise} : & D \not\isin M
+  \end{cases}
+ \right\} $
+
 \end{basedescript}
 \newpage
 \section{Invariants}
@@ -334,6 +349,29 @@ $\qed$
 If $D = C$, trivial.  For $D \neq C$:
 $D \isin C \equiv D \isin A \equiv D \le A \equiv D \le C$.  $\qed$
 
+\section{Anticommit}
+
+Given $L, R^+, R^-$ where
+$\patchof{R^+} = \pry, \patchof{R^-} = \prn$.  
+Construct $C$ which has $\pr$ removed.
+Used for removing a branch dependency.
+\gathbegin
+ C \hasparents \{ L \}
+\gathnext
+ \patchof{C} = \patchof{L}
+\gathnext
+ D \isin C \equiv
+   \begin{cases}
+      R \in \py : & \baseof{R} \ge \baseof{L}
+              \land [\baseof{L} = M \lor \baseof{L} = \baseof{M}] \\
+      R \in \pn : & R \ge \baseof{L}
+              \land M = \baseof{L} \\
+      \text{otherwise} : & \false
+   \end{cases}
+\end{gather}
+
+xxx want to prove $D \isin C \equiv D \not\in pry \land D \isin L$.
+
 \section{Merge}
 
 Merge commits $L$ and $R$ using merge base $M$ ($M < L, M < R$):
@@ -409,34 +447,17 @@ $A \le R \equiv A \le \baseof{R}$.
 But by Tip Merge condition on $\baseof{R}$,
 $A \le \baseof{L} \implies A \le \baseof{R}$, so
 $A \le \baseof{R} \lor A \le \baseof{L} \equiv A \le \baseof{R}$.
-Thus $A \le C \equiv A \le \baseof{R}$.  Ie, $\baseof{C} =
-\baseof{R}$.
+Thus $A \le C \equiv A \le \baseof{R}$.  
+That is, $\baseof{C} = \baseof{R}$.
 
 \subsubsection{For $R \in \pn$:}
 
 By Tip Merge condition on $R$,
-$A \le \baseof{L} \implies A \le R$
+$A \le \baseof{L} \implies A \le R$, so
+$A \le R \lor A \le \baseof{L} \equiv A \le R$.  
+Thus $A \le C \equiv A \le R$.  
+That is, $\baseof{C} = R$.
 
-UP TO HERE
-
-Let $S =
-   \begin{cases} 
-     R \in \py : & \baseof{R} \\
-     R \in \pn : & R
-   \end{cases}$.  
-Then by Tip Merge $S \ge \baseof{L}$, and $R \ge S$ so $C \ge S$.
-   
-Consider some $A \in \pn$.  If $A \le S$ then $A \le C$.
-If $A \not\le S$ then 
-
-Let $A \in \pends{C}{\pn}$.  
-Then by Calculation Of Ends $A \in \pendsof{L,\pn} \lor A \in
-\pendsof{R,\pn}$.
-
-
-
-%$\pends{C,
-
-%%\subsubsection{For $R \in \py$:}
+$\qed$
 
 \end{document}