Re: [PATCH] merge-recursive: mark rename/delete conflict as unmerged

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi,

On Mon, 22 Dec 2008, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes:
> 
> > When a file was renamed in one branch, but deleted in the other, one 
> > should expect the index to contain an unmerged entry, namely the 
> > target of the rename.  Make it so.
> 
> That was quick, but the surrounding code makes me wonder if other
> if/elseif branches also need similar handling.

I tried to make sure that the surrounding code also adds unmerged entries, 
but I have to admit that my focus lay with the bug report at hand.

> For example, rename/add comes up with a new name that does not exist 
> anywhere, and adds both to the index; it is understandable that you need 
> to do this when processing a merge with non-zero depth because you need 
> to have a tree as the result, but shouldn't the final zero depth merge 
> just use the original names and leave the results in higher stages?

Hmm.  I think this is a different issue (if you mean the issue that the 
result might be named differently than expected).

As for the unmerged entries, no, I do not think we need to do anything 
else besides calling update_file() and set try_merge = 1.

After all, if a file was renamed in one branch, but added directly in 
another, does it need to conflict?  I'd say no.

Ciao,
Dscho

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux