On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Ramsay Jones
<ramsay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Ben, Junio,
>
> In the second case, t6036-*.sh, git bisect fingered commit b61f9d6e
> ("ll-merge: use a longer conflict marker for internal merge", 14-04-2016).
Yeah, the t6036 testcase 'git detects conflict w/
criss-cross+contrived resolution' could be made to pass by tweaking
the conflict markers. In fact, any tweak would make it appear to
pass, but the test could be updated to still fail by updating the
contrived resolution of a previous merge to use the newer conflict
marker style as well.
The test is kind of fragile in this way, and is really there just to
document this slightly weird and never seen in practice corner case.
I don't think we'll ever fix the underlying "problem"; not even sure
if it's possible without fundamentally re-thinking our merge strategy
altogether. I just thought that when I was writing all those tests
that documenting this particular behavior as a testcase had some
value, but if the conflict markers are going to be updated
periodically, then the cost of the test may outweigh its value and we
should just toss this one test from that file.
Elijah
--
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