Sponsored Content
Full Discussion: simple sed question
Top Forums Shell Programming and Scripting simple sed question Post 302113559 by funksen on Saturday 7th of April 2007 10:01:12 AM
Old 04-07-2007
thanks shell_life

that is almost the same statement that I wrote in the topic, so is there no way to merge this three commands into one with some kind of separator in the first field?
 

10 More Discussions You Might Find Interesting

1. UNIX for Dummies Questions & Answers

Simple sed question

Is there an easier way to do the following: echo "|||||||" | sed 's/||/|0|/g; s/||/|0|/g' which would give the following |0|0|0|0|0|0| If it is not run twice it will not pick up the second occurance of the || and leave it empty as in echo "|||||||" | sed 's/||/|0|/g' which would give... (3 Replies)
Discussion started by: maverick
3 Replies

2. UNIX for Dummies Questions & Answers

Ok simple question for simple knowledge...

Ok what is BSD exactly? I know its a type of open source but what is it exactly? (1 Reply)
Discussion started by: Corrail
1 Replies

3. Shell Programming and Scripting

sed - simple question

Hello My file looks like that => 12.56 have then 7888778.2566 what 44454.54545 878787.66565 if else 4445.54545455 I want to change all '.' on ',' . I'm trying to do it with sed but I don't know chow to build regular expression to change 454.4466 on 454,4466 ? (13 Replies)
Discussion started by: scotty_123
13 Replies

4. Shell Programming and Scripting

simple awk/sed/tr question

I have a file CREATE TABLE DDD_EXT --- 1000 ( val u1 val u1 ); CREATE TABLE dsdasd_EXT --- 1323 ( val u1 val u1 ); CREATE TABLE AAAAAA_EXT --- 1222 ( val u1 val u1 ); CREATE TABLE E_EXT --- 11 ( val u1 val u1 (2 Replies)
Discussion started by: jville
2 Replies

5. Shell Programming and Scripting

simple sed question

How do I remove parentheses using sed? input (192.168.1.1) output 192.168.1.1 (4 Replies)
Discussion started by: streetfighter2
4 Replies

6. Shell Programming and Scripting

Simple sed question.

I have a log output with a format similar to this: a=1, b= 2 c=0, d= 45, e=100 ... and so on. I figure I can just use awk or something to pipe the file to sed, but I'm trying to replace all the values above with 0. I've tried: cat blah | sed 's/=\(.*\),/0/'but that didn't work. ... (6 Replies)
Discussion started by: throw_a_stick
6 Replies

7. Shell Programming and Scripting

simple sed question - replace from phrase to end of line

I have the following line an in input file I want to digest with sed and simple replace the bold part with a variable defined in my bash script. I can do this in several sed operations but I know there must be a way to do it in a single sed line. What is the syntax? Line in file:... (1 Reply)
Discussion started by: graysky
1 Replies

8. Shell Programming and Scripting

Simple sed script question

Script newbie, so I'm sure I'm missing something obvious here, but how come this simple script does not work? #!/bin/bash ... (3 Replies)
Discussion started by: KidCactus
3 Replies

9. Red Hat

Syslog.conf: looking for a simple answer on a simple question

Cheers! In /etc/syslog.conf, if an error type is not specified, is it logged anywhere (most preferable is it logged to /var/log/messages) or not? To be more precise I am interested in error and critical level messages. At default these errors are not specified in syslog.conf, and I need to... (6 Replies)
Discussion started by: dr1zzt3r
6 Replies

10. UNIX for Beginners Questions & Answers

Simple SED Question

I don't understand this command behavior. echo "abc" |sed 's/a/&_&/' (4 Replies)
Discussion started by: Vartika18
4 Replies
GIT-MERGE-BASE(1)                                                   Git Manual                                                   GIT-MERGE-BASE(1)

NAME
git-merge-base - Find as good common ancestors as possible for a merge SYNOPSIS
git merge-base [-a|--all] <commit> <commit>... git merge-base [-a|--all] --octopus <commit>... git merge-base --is-ancestor <commit> <commit> git merge-base --independent <commit>... git merge-base --fork-point <ref> [<commit>] DESCRIPTION
git merge-base finds best common ancestor(s) between two commits to use in a three-way merge. One common ancestor is better than another common ancestor if the latter is an ancestor of the former. A common ancestor that does not have any better common ancestor is a best common ancestor, i.e. a merge base. Note that there can be more than one merge base for a pair of commits. OPERATION MODES
As the most common special case, specifying only two commits on the command line means computing the merge base between the given two commits. More generally, among the two commits to compute the merge base from, one is specified by the first commit argument on the command line; the other commit is a (possibly hypothetical) commit that is a merge across all the remaining commits on the command line. As a consequence, the merge base is not necessarily contained in each of the commit arguments if more than two commits are specified. This is different from git-show-branch(1) when used with the --merge-base option. --octopus Compute the best common ancestors of all supplied commits, in preparation for an n-way merge. This mimics the behavior of git show-branch --merge-base. --independent Instead of printing merge bases, print a minimal subset of the supplied commits with the same ancestors. In other words, among the commits given, list those which cannot be reached from any other. This mimics the behavior of git show-branch --independent. --is-ancestor Check if the first <commit> is an ancestor of the second <commit>, and exit with status 0 if true, or with status 1 if not. Errors are signaled by a non-zero status that is not 1. --fork-point Find the point at which a branch (or any history that leads to <commit>) forked from another branch (or any reference) <ref>. This does not just look for the common ancestor of the two commits, but also takes into account the reflog of <ref> to see if the history leading to <commit> forked from an earlier incarnation of the branch <ref> (see discussion on this mode below). OPTIONS
-a, --all Output all merge bases for the commits, instead of just one. DISCUSSION
Given two commits A and B, git merge-base A B will output a commit which is reachable from both A and B through the parent relationship. For example, with this topology: o---o---o---B / ---o---1---o---o---o---A the merge base between A and B is 1. Given three commits A, B and C, git merge-base A B C will compute the merge base between A and a hypothetical commit M, which is a merge between B and C. For example, with this topology: o---o---o---o---C / / o---o---o---B / / ---2---1---o---o---o---A the result of git merge-base A B C is 1. This is because the equivalent topology with a merge commit M between B and C is: o---o---o---o---o / / o---o---o---o---M / / ---2---1---o---o---o---A and the result of git merge-base A M is 1. Commit 2 is also a common ancestor between A and M, but 1 is a better common ancestor, because 2 is an ancestor of 1. Hence, 2 is not a merge base. The result of git merge-base --octopus A B C is 2, because 2 is the best common ancestor of all commits. When the history involves criss-cross merges, there can be more than one best common ancestor for two commits. For example, with this topology: ---1---o---A / X / ---2---o---o---B both 1 and 2 are merge-bases of A and B. Neither one is better than the other (both are best merge bases). When the --all option is not given, it is unspecified which best one is output. A common idiom to check "fast-forward-ness" between two commits A and B is (or at least used to be) to compute the merge base between A and B, and check if it is the same as A, in which case, A is an ancestor of B. You will see this idiom used often in older scripts. A=$(git rev-parse --verify A) if test "$A" = "$(git merge-base A B)" then ... A is an ancestor of B ... fi In modern git, you can say this in a more direct way: if git merge-base --is-ancestor A B then ... A is an ancestor of B ... fi instead. DISCUSSION ON FORK-POINT MODE After working on the topic branch created with git checkout -b topic origin/master, the history of remote-tracking branch origin/master may have been rewound and rebuilt, leading to a history of this shape: o---B2 / ---o---o---B1--o---o---o---B (origin/master) B0 D0---D1---D (topic) where origin/master used to point at commits B0, B1, B2 and now it points at B, and your topic branch was started on top of it back when origin/master was at B0, and you built three commits, D0, D1, and D, on top of it. Imagine that you now want to rebase the work you did on the topic on top of the updated origin/master. In such a case, git merge-base origin/master topic would return the parent of B0 in the above picture, but B0^..D is not the range of commits you would want to replay on top of B (it includes B0, which is not what you wrote; it is a commit the other side discarded when it moved its tip from B0 to B1). git merge-base --fork-point origin/master topic is designed to help in such a case. It takes not only B but also B0, B1, and B2 (i.e. old tips of the remote-tracking branches your repository's reflog knows about) into account to see on which commit your topic branch was built and finds B0, allowing you to replay only the commits on your topic, excluding the commits the other side later discarded. Hence $ fork_point=$(git merge-base --fork-point origin/master topic) will find B0, and $ git rebase --onto origin/master $fork_point topic will replay D0, D1 and D on top of B to create a new history of this shape: o---B2 / ---o---o---B1--o---o---o---B (origin/master) B0 D0'--D1'--D' (topic - updated) D0---D1---D (topic - old) A caveat is that older reflog entries in your repository may be expired by git gc. If B0 no longer appears in the reflog of the remote-tracking branch origin/master, the --fork-point mode obviously cannot find it and fails, avoiding to give a random and useless result (such as the parent of B0, like the same command without the --fork-point option gives). Also, the remote-tracking branch you use the --fork-point mode with must be the one your topic forked from its tip. If you forked from an older commit than the tip, this mode would not find the fork point (imagine in the above sample history B0 did not exist, origin/master started at B1, moved to B2 and then B, and you forked your topic at origin/master^ when origin/master was B1; the shape of the history would be the same as above, without B0, and the parent of B1 is what git merge-base origin/master topic correctly finds, but the --fork-point mode will not, because it is not one of the commits that used to be at the tip of origin/master). SEE ALSO
git-rev-list(1), git-show-branch(1), git-merge(1) GIT
Part of the git(1) suite Git 2.17.1 10/05/2018 GIT-MERGE-BASE(1)
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:14 PM.
Unix & Linux Forums Content Copyright 1993-2022. All Rights Reserved.
Privacy Policy