[PATCH 1/5] t1000: fix case table.

Case #10 is not handled with unpack-trees.c:threeway_merge()
internally, unless under the agressive rule, and it is not a
bug.  As the test expects, ND (one side did not do anything,
other side deleted) case was meant to be handled by the caller's
policy (e.g. git-merge-one-file or git-merge-recursive).

Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <redacted>
---
 t/t1000-read-tree-m-3way.sh |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/t/t1000-read-tree-m-3way.sh b/t/t1000-read-tree-m-3way.sh
index e26a36c..de4e5eb 100755
--- a/t/t1000-read-tree-m-3way.sh
+++ b/t/t1000-read-tree-m-3way.sh

@@ -184,7 +184,7 @@ checked.
   9  exists  O!=A    missing   no merge    must match A and be
                                            up-to-date, if exists.
  ------------------------------------------------------------------
- 10  exists  O==A    missing   remove      ditto
+ 10  exists  O==A    missing   no merge    must match A
  ------------------------------------------------------------------
  11  exists  O!=A    O!=B      no merge    must match A and be
                      A!=B                  up-to-date, if exists.

-- 
1.5.1.81.gee969

On Sat, 7 Apr 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Case #10 is not handled with unpack-trees.c:threeway_merge()
internally, unless under the agressive rule, and it is not a
bug.  As the test expects, ND (one side did not do anything,
other side deleted) case was meant to be handled by the caller's
policy (e.g. git-merge-one-file or git-merge-recursive).

Looks like I neglected to update (or remove) that table; 
Documentation/technical/trivial-merge.txt agrees with your change.

	-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*