On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 02:46:42PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > After looking through the history and the list archive, I don't _think_ > > this was intentional, and we simply missed the case in both places. But > > maybe somebody else knows something I don't. It seems like we should be > > punting to the user under the general principle of stupid and safe > > merges. > > Yes, I do not recall ever discussing and agreeing with Linus that we > should resolve to deletion over mode change, and I agree that it > would be very likely that this never came up in practice simply > because in real life removal is already rare, mode change is rarer, > and these happening to the same path in the same timeperiod to > matter in merges is even more rare. > > We should definitely signal a conflict. Thanks, that matches my thinking exactly. BTW, this came up because libgit2 does signal the conflict, and we are regression-testing a switch from merge-resolve over to libgit2 to power GitHub's "merge" button. Run it on enough test cases and you will find one of everything. :) -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