On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 3:30 PM Calvin Wan <calvinwan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> "Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > +# Testcase 12l, Both sides rename a directory into the other side, both add
> > +# a file with after directory renames are the same filename
> > +# Commit O: sub1/file, sub2/other
> > +# Commit A: sub3/file, sub2/{other, new_add_add_file_1}
> > +# Commit B: sub1/{file, newfile}, sub1/sub2/{other, new_add_add_file_2}
> > +#
> > +# In words:
> > +# A: sub1/ -> sub3/, add sub2/new_add_add_file_1
> > +# B: sub2/ -> sub1/sub2, add sub1/newfile, add sub1/sub2/new_add_add_file_2
> > +#
> > +# Expected: sub3/{file, newfile, sub2/other}
> > +# CONFLICT (add/add): sub3/sub2/new_add_add_file
>
> Grammatically, I could not understand
>
> "both add a file with after directory renames are the same filename"
Oops, that should be "with" -> "which".
> I also found the same issue with `Expected` that Jonathan mentions. I ran the
> command separately and got
>
> CONFLICT (add/add): Merge conflict in sub1/sub2/new_add_add_file
Yeah, repeatedly revising stuff is fine as long as you remember to
update all the parts. (I was swapping which directories were named
"sub1", "sub2" and "sub3" to see if lexicographic ordering might be
related to why this simpler test triggered a bug in the "recursive"
strategy but Glen's bigger testcase didn't.). Anyway, I just missed
updating one of the locations while doing that revision; sorry about
that. Will fix.
