Re: [RFH] straightening out "read-tree -m"

Steven Grimm [off-list ref] writes:

On my to-do list for next week is to try to come up with a minimally
complex test case to demonstrate the problem, as the actual
repositories in question are pretty convoluted and there were a bunch
of other unrelated changes. I didn't mention it before now because I
knew my description was certain to be too vague to be useful without a
test case to look at.

You are free to come up with test case, but I have a feeling
that the problem is already well understood (and that is why the
last part of my RFH matters a lot more than the former "case
table").  In short, "read-tree -m" (and unpack-trees) is screwy
in the presense of D/F conflicts.