Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > When the working tree has: > - bar (directory) > - bar/file (file) > - foo (symlink to .) > > (note that lstat() for "foo/bar" would tell us that it is a directory) > > and the user merges a commit that deletes the foo symlink and instead > contains: > - bar (directory, as above) > - bar/file (file, as above) > - foo (directory) > - foo/bar (file) > > the merge should happen without requiring user intervention. Thanks. That clears my previous confusion. It is clear that the desired outcome is that bar/file will be merged with itself, foo itself will resolve to "deleted", and foo/bar will be created. > However, this does not happen. OK. We notice that we need to newly create foo/bar but we incorrectly find that there is "foo/bar" already because of the careless use of bare lstat(2) makes "bar" visible as if it were also "foo/bar". I wonder if the current code would be confused the same way if the side branch added "foo/bar/file", or the confusion would be even worse---it is not dir_in_way() and a different codepath would be affected, no? > diff --git a/merge-recursive.c b/merge-recursive.c > index 6b812d67e3..22a12cfeba 100644 > --- a/merge-recursive.c > +++ b/merge-recursive.c > @@ -764,7 +764,8 @@ static int dir_in_way(struct index_state *istate, const char *path, > > strbuf_release(&dirpath); > return check_working_copy && !lstat(path, &st) && S_ISDIR(st.st_mode) && > - !(empty_ok && is_empty_dir(path)); > + !(empty_ok && is_empty_dir(path)) && > + !has_symlink_leading_path(path, strlen(path)); As the new call is fairly heavyweight compared to everything else we are doing, I think it is very sensible to have this at the end, like this patch does. Nicely done. Thanks, will queue.
