Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes:
> ...
>> Okay, so you're saying that merge-recursive should use the aggressive
>> strategy?
>
> I do not think so. Isn't the whole "see if there are renames" thing
> depend on threeway_merge() not resolving "one side removes other
> side leaves intact" case itself? Aggressive resolves it saying
> "Ok that is a remove", which risks it to miss the case in which
> that the side that apparently "removed" the path in fact moved
> it somewhere else.
>
> The last time I looked at merge-recursive's D/F check, I found
> that it was not quite doing things right. I may be able to dig
> up what I posted to the list...
It was from around April 7th-10th this year.
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/43970/focus=44158
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/43971/focus=43997
I think the case described in the latter message is almost the
opposite case of what your patch tries to deal with.
In the web interface of
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
the patch series that led to my complaints are at around page 76
for me.
-
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
