Re: [PATCH 1/4] merge: improve inexact rename limit warning

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 10:46:57AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> >> This conflicts with 2840824 (diffcore-rename: fall back to -C when -C -C
> >> busts the rename limit, 2011-01-06) on 'pu', unfortunately.
> >
> > Do you want to do the merge, or do you want me to rebase on top of
> > 2840824?
> 
> Please check the resolution queued on 'pu'; I suspect that your series
> should graduate before the fall-back-to-c-from-c-c topic, so I'd rather
> not to see you rebase this.

It looks sane to me. I was going to say we should also have
merge-recursive check for the fallback-to-c flag and tell the user what
happened, but I don't think merge-recursive ever has FIND_COPIES_HARDER
enabled.

Which I think means in 2840824 itself, the warning about fallback can
never be triggered (because merge-recursive is the only caller who
turned on warn_on_too_large_rename).

-Peff
--
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


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]