"Alex Riesen" <raa.lkml@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 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.
Perhaps, but I think the bigger issue is that existing D/F or
F/D conflict detection is simply buggy, and this patch shouldn't
be needed if they were working correctly.
-
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