Re: [PATCH 4/5] merge-recursive: handle D/F conflict case more carefully.

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

 



On 4/9/07, Junio C Hamano <junkio@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Alex Riesen <raa.lkml@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Junio C Hamano, Sat, Apr 07, 2007 16:42:55 +0200:
>> +                    if (unlink(path)) {
>> +                            if (errno == EISDIR) {
>> +                                    /* something else exists */
>> +                                    error(msg, path, ": perhaps a D/F conflict?");
>
> isn't this one an F/D conflict?

Yes, as I said in a separate message, the current D/F detector
code in merge-recursive does not catch this case in t3030 test
and comes to this codepath to write it out:


I mean, maybe the error could be spelled differently:
": perhaps an F/D conflict?"
Right now we have two exactly the same errors,
as seen on the output. The messages refer to different
conflicts, though. It is usually useful to know what is really
going on.
-
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]