On Friday 12 March 2010 06:49:23 Junio C Hamano wrote: > Christian Couder <chriscool@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > Anyway when looking at t/t6035-merge-dir-to-symlink.sh, we can see that > > there are still 2 broken tests: > > > > $ ./t6035-merge-dir-to-symlink.sh > > ... > > * ok 5: do not lose a/b-2/c/d in merge (resolve) > > * still broken 6: do not lose a/b-2/c/d in merge (recursive) > > * ok 7: setup a merge where dir a/b-2 changed to symlink > > * ok 8: merge should not have conflicts (resolve) > > * still broken 9: merge should not have conflicts (recursive) > > * still have 2 known breakage(s) > > * passed all remaining 7 test(s) > > > > So it looks like breakages in this area are known, though perhaps not > > your particular breakage. > > The above shows that resolve passes the same tests that recursive fails, > which means that the breakage is likely to be in recursive, and not in > unpack-trees, as you seemt to have guessed earlier. Yes, you are right the breakage is in recursive as it works with resolve. > If cherry-pick were > still a shell script, we could easily test that conjecture by letting you > try running it using resolve instead of recursive, but things like that > has got a lot harder to do these days since many things were rewritten in > C (sigh). > > It might not be a bad idea to teach a hidden primarily-for-debugging > option to "cherry-pick" to let it use resolve instead of recursive for > cases like this. I will send an RFC patch series to do that. I used it to check that the test case works with the resolve strategy. Best regards, Christian. -- 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