Re: [PATCH] merge-recursive: add/add really is modify/modify with an empty base

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

 



Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes:

> Unify the handling for cases C (add/add) and D (modify/modify).
>
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@xxxxxx>
> ---
>
> 	On Tue, 12 Dec 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> 	> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes:
> 	> 
> 	> > How about this: if there is an add/add conflict, we treat it 
> 	> > as if there _was_ an empty file, and we let the shiny new 
> 	> > xdl_merge() find the _true_ conflicts, _instead of_ removing 
> 	> > the file from the index, adding both files with different 
> 	> > "~blabla" markers appended to their file names to the working 
> 	> > directory.
> 	> 
> 	> I was not thinking about this t6024 test failure problem but was
> 	> wondering about doing exactly that in merge-recursive to match
> 	> the "two file merge" magic we have in git-merge-one-file.sh
>
> 	As can be seen with the test case, the result is more pleasing.

This fixes the behaviour in "both branches add the path
differently" case.  Previously merge-recursive did not create
the working tree file, but now it does just like merge-resolve.

Although I would feel very happy about this change, Catalin
might want to be informed about potential interaction this
change might have with his commit 8d41555 in StGIT.

-
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]