On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 10:54:38PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Yes, I agree with that reading. I'd squash in this on top, first making > sure that "do not overwrite untracked symlinks" (which is the title of > this patch) won't be broken, and then the original test that wanted to > make sure that checking out a/b/c/d when a/b is pointing to an unrelated > part of the tree does not nuke whatever is pointed at that symbolic link. Ok, perfect. > My unhappiness with the undescriptive "check_leading_path()" still > remains, though... Ok. If I can't figure anything out this weekend, I'll rename it. Promise. It's just that I'm even more unhappy about the actual code rather than the function name. And each time I look at it I end up trying to fix it, only to find out that it affects so many parts of the code that don't make any sense. For example, we already have a function check_path() in entry.c, which does something very similar and is called by checkout_entry(), which in turn does something similar to verify_absent(). In fact, I suspect that both functions are called twice by the same code path around unpack_trees, for the same paths and for the same reason. I strongly feel that we should separate the merge process into two steps. - First, do everything in the index, ignoring the work tree. - Second, checkout the index to the work tree while making sure no changes or untracked files get overwritten. I know I have talked about this before, and I don't know if I will ever find the time to implement such a major change. But I can't get myself to feel good about fixing the function name, but not the function. Clemens -- 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