Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> +test_expect_success 'set up custom strategy' ' >> + test_commit --no-tag "Initial" base base && >> +git show-ref && >> + >> + for b in branch1 branch2 branch3 >> + do >> + git checkout -b $b main && >> + test_commit --no-tag "Change on $b" base $b >> + done && >> + >> + git checkout branch1 && > > Here, perhaps we can make two additional test cases, that try with > local change that (1) overlaps with the changes branch2 and branch3 > bring in and that (2) does not overlap. I am worried about the case > (2) losing the local change due to the call to reset_hard(). We do not need a new test to demonstrate the breakage in the proposed patch, I think. Here is one place I found that we already test that merging in a dirty working tree fails. We only need to make sure that we do so without losing local changes. t/t6424-merge-unrelated-index-changes.sh | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git c/t/t6424-merge-unrelated-index-changes.sh w/t/t6424-merge-unrelated-index-changes.sh index 89dd544f38..88e0b541a0 100755 --- c/t/t6424-merge-unrelated-index-changes.sh +++ w/t/t6424-merge-unrelated-index-changes.sh @@ -171,7 +171,8 @@ test_expect_success 'octopus, unrelated file touched' ' touch random_file && git add random_file && test_must_fail git merge C^0 D^0 && - test_path_is_missing .git/MERGE_HEAD + test_path_is_missing .git/MERGE_HEAD && + test_path_exists random_file ' test_expect_success 'octopus, related file removed' '
