Re: [PATCH] xdl_merge(): fix a segmentation fault when refining conflicts

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

 



Hi,

On Sat, 30 Dec 2006, Jakub Narebski wrote:

> Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> 
> > Of course, you can hit mismerges like the illustrated one _without_ 
> > being marked as conflict (e.g. if the chunk of identical code is _not_ 
> > added, but only the increments), but we should at least avoid them 
> > where possible.
> 
> Perhaps you could make it even more conservating merge conflicts option 
> (to tighten merge conflicts even more) to xdl_merge, but not used by 
> default because as it removes accidental conflicts it increases 
> mismerges (falsely not conflicted).

There is no way to do this sanely. If you want to catch these mismerges, 
you have to mark _all_ modifications as conflicting.

Ciao,
Dscho

-
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]