Re: [PATCH v3 11/33] directory rename detection: testcases exploring possibly suboptimal merges

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

 



> +# Note: Both x and y got renamed and it'd be nice to detect both, and we do
> +# better with directory rename detection than git did previously, but the
> +# simple rule from section 5 prevents me from handling this as optimally as
> +# we potentially could.

...previously...

> +# Testcase 8e, Both sides rename, one side adds to original directory
> +#   Commit O: z/{b,c}
> +#   Commit A: y/{b,c}
> +#   Commit B: w/{b,c}, z/d
> +#
> +# Possible Resolutions:
> +#   Previous git: z/d, CONFLICT(z/b -> y/b vs. w/b), CONFLICT(z/c -> y/c vs. w/c)

"Previous git" may be hard to understand when reviewing this code in 2 years.
The future proof term is "git without dir rename detection" or such.
(This is only a small nit, which on its own doesn't require a reroll;
I'll keep reading.)



[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]

  Powered by Linux