Re: [PATCH] submodule: Demonstrate known breakage during recursive merge

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

 



On 8/24/2011 3:14 PM, Heiko Voigt wrote:
> thanks for finding this subtle bug!

Thanks for looking at it!

On 8/24/2011 3:46 PM, Heiko Voigt wrote:
For the merge search we do not take the bases into
account so the outcome will not change.

The test case creates history like this:

>     b---bc
>    / \ /
>   o   X
>    \ / \
>     c---cb

where b, c, bc, and cb all reference different submodule commits.

Isn't the merge search asked to search for a descendant of "b:sub" and "c:sub"
during the recursive part of the merge and then "bc:sub" and "cb:sub" during
the primary merge?  Might those results be different?

As for the UI part, I think the user would be interested only in the search
results for the primary merge between HEAD and MERGE_HEAD.  Results from the
intermediate merges might not make sense.

Thanks,
-Brad
--
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]