"Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> From: Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> If we need to delete a higher stage entry in the index to place the file
> at stage 0, then we'll lose that file's stat information. In such
> situations we may still be able to detect that the file on disk is the
> version we want (as noted by our comment in the code:
> /* do not overwrite file if already present */
> ), but we do still need to update the mtime since we are creating a new
> cache_entry for that file. Update the logic used to determine whether
> we refresh a file's mtime.
>
> Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> merge-recursive.c | 7 +++++--
> t/t3433-rebase-across-mode-change.sh | 2 +-
> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/merge-recursive.c b/merge-recursive.c
> index aee1769a7ac..e6f943c5ccc 100644
> --- a/merge-recursive.c
> +++ b/merge-recursive.c
> @@ -998,10 +998,13 @@ static int update_file_flags(struct merge_options *opt,
> free(buf);
> }
> update_index:
> - if (!ret && update_cache)
> - if (add_cacheinfo(opt, contents, path, 0, update_wd,
> + if (!ret && update_cache) {
> + int refresh = (!opt->priv->call_depth &&
> + contents->mode != S_IFGITLINK);
> + if (add_cacheinfo(opt, contents, path, 0, refresh,
> ADD_CACHE_OK_TO_ADD))
> return -1;
Hmph, !.call_depth would avoid resetting update_wd to 0, so the only
difference this patch makes is when the caller of this helper passed
(update_wd == 0) during the outermost merge. We did not tell
add_cacheinfo() to refresh, and refresh_cache_entry() was not
called. But the new code forces refresh to happen for normal
entries. The proposed log message explains that a refresh is needed
for a new cache entry, but if I am reading the code correctly, this
function is called with !update_wd from two places, one of which is
the "Adding %s" /* do not overwrite ... */ the log message mentions.
But the other one? When both sides added identically, we do have an
up-to-date result on our side already, so shouldn't we avoid forcing
update_wd in that case?
I do not think passing refresh==1 in that case will produce an
incorrect result, but doesn't it force an unnecessary refreshing?
Puzzled.
> + }
> return ret;
> }
>
> diff --git a/t/t3433-rebase-across-mode-change.sh b/t/t3433-rebase-across-mode-change.sh
> index f11fc35c3ee..05df964670f 100755
> --- a/t/t3433-rebase-across-mode-change.sh
> +++ b/t/t3433-rebase-across-mode-change.sh
> @@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ test_expect_success 'rebase changes with the apply backend' '
> git rebase side1
> '
>
> -test_expect_failure 'rebase changes with the merge backend' '
> +test_expect_success 'rebase changes with the merge backend' '
> test_when_finished "git rebase --abort || true" &&
> git checkout -b merge-backend side2 &&
> git rebase -m side1
