Hi,
On Fri, 8 May 2009, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes:
>
> > When there is no "common" tree (for whatever reason), we must not
> > throw a segmentation fault.
>
> You described why the old code was wrong (i.e. "init_tree_desc_from_tree
> is called with common == NULL"), but there is no mention why the new
> code is correct. For the purpose of satisfying the above statement, you
> could have just exit(0) as well ;-)
Yes, I should have marked this patch as "please test if the result is what
you think it should be", because I was running out of time and therefore
could not properly think things through.
> > + else {
> > + opts.merge = 0;
> > + opts.head_idx = 1;
> > + init_tree_desc_from_tree(t+0, head);
> > + init_tree_desc_from_tree(t+1, merge);
> > + rc = unpack_trees(2, t, &opts);
> > + }
>
> This looks more like a half of branch-switch from HEAD to MERGE, not a
> merge between HEAD and MERGE as two equal histories. Shouldn't it be
> doing a three-way tree merge using an empty tree object as the common
> ancestor instead, just like merge_recursive.c::merge_recursive() itself
> does?
But of course!
Thanks,
Dscho
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html