Re: [PATCH] merge-tree: sometimes, d/f conflict is not an issue

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

 



Hi,

On Sat, 7 Jul 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes:
> 
> >> IOW, don't make unpack-trees to make policy decisions on final 
> >> resolution, unless it is operating under aggressive rule (where the 
> >> caller explicitly allows it to make more than the "trivial" decisions).  
> >> The caller (in this case, merge-recursive) should see A at stage #2 with 
> >> A/B at stages #1 and #3 and decide what to do.
> >
> > Okay, so you're saying that merge-recursive should use the aggressive 
> > strategy?
> 
> I do not think so.

Yes, I realized that by running the tests with it.  A rename A->B in one, 
and A->C in the other branch will go undetected.

I should have written this into my mail posting the WIP patch, but 
frankly, I was too tired.

Ciao,
Dscho

-
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]

  Powered by Linux