On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 01:27:08PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 12:58:07PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > >> I could argue that the above intended behaviour is suboptimal and it > >> should have been "the resulting paths in the index and the work tree > >> that match the given pathspec must be identical to that of the > >> tree-ish". In the resulting index or working tree, paths that match > >> "subdir" pathspec in the above result is subdir/a and subdir/b, and > >> that is different from what exists in the given tree-ish (which has > >> only subdir/a and not subdir/b), and under that modified definition, > >> what the current one does is not correct. > > > > Our emails just crossed, but I basically ended up saying a similar > > thing. Could we simply replace the "update_some" in builtin/checkout.c > > with a two-way merge via unpack-trees? > > Would it work to resolve a conflicted index by checking out from a > known tree? Hrm. Probably not. It is almost a one-way merge going to the named tree (but limited by the pathspec), except that I think the current git-checkout code may provide some safety checks related to where we are coming from (e.g., do we unconditionally overwrite entries that are not uptodate?). -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