On Sun, 8 Oct 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Note note note. The above patch alone leaves merge risky to > remove an untracked working tree files, and needs to be > compensated by corresponding checks to the git-merge-xxx > strategies. The original code was overcautious, but was > protecting valid cases too. I think the difference _should_ be that we only remove the local file if it was removed _remotely_. In that case, it was there in the original tree, and removing it is correct. > diff --git a/git-merge-one-file.sh b/git-merge-one-file.sh index > fba4b0c..25aedb7 100755 --- a/git-merge-one-file.sh +++ > b/git-merge-one-file.sh @@ -23,6 +23,9 @@ # > "$1.." | "$1.$1" | "$1$1.") So I actually think that we should NOT consider these three cases to be the same. There are really two distinct cases: - "$1.." and "$1.$1" The file had already been removed locally, AND WE SHOULD NOT TOUCH IT. - "$1$1.": The file was removed remotely, and we SHOULD remove it locally. In fact, we already have that as a "special case": > if [ "$2" ]; then > echo "Removing $4" > + elif test -f "$4" > + echo "ERROR: untracked $4 is removed by the merge." > + exit 1 > fi > if test -f "$4"; then > rm -f -- "$4" && That if [ "$2" ]; then echo "Removing $4" is _exactly_ that case: it is the "$1$1." case, and we already treat it differently, but we actually treat it differently the wrong way: we only print out the message for that case, but the actual "touch working tree" code should _also_ be affected. If the local index doesn't change, we should not print out the "Removing 'so-and-so'" message, but we should also not even _touch_ that file, because it was already "gone" as far as the local tree was concerned. Agreed? Linus - 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