Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> No, the original code would not have taken 'ort'. You have overlooked
> the part of the code immediately above these two lines:
>
> if (ret < 2) {
> if (!ret) {
> if (option_commit) {
> /* Automerge succeeded. */
> automerge_was_ok = 1;
> break;
> }
> merge_was_ok = 1;
> }
>
> In particular, the "break" is key.
I noticed that much but then would "git merge --no-commit -s A -s B"
have the issue?
> ... In contrast, if the user did specify
> --no-commit and the previous strategy succeeded, then we will continue
> the loop. That seems rather inconsistent, since --no-commit should
> not affect the choice of strategy.
Yeah, exactly.
> However, I missed two things in my reading. You are correct that I
> missed the "<=" as opposed to "<" when I wrote my commit message,
> though that turns out to not matter much due to the second thing. The
> second thing I missed was part of the code at the beginning of the
> loop:
>
> for (i = 0; !merge_was_ok && i < use_strategies_nr; i++) {
Ahhhh, that explains it. We leave as soon as we find merge_was_ok
so this patch is not necessary. There is nothing to fix. The
original was fine as-is.
Thanks.
