Re: [PATCH 4/5] merge-recursive: handle D/F conflict case more carefully.

"Alex Riesen" [off-list ref] writes:

On 4/9/07, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Alex Riesen [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Junio C Hamano, Sat, Apr 07, 2007 16:42:55 +0200:

quoted

+                    if (unlink(path)) {
+                            if (errno == EISDIR) {
+                                    /* something else exists */
+                                    error(msg, path, ": perhaps a D/F conflict?");

isn't this one an F/D conflict?

Yes, as I said in a separate message, the current D/F detector
code in merge-recursive does not catch this case in t3030 test
and comes to this codepath to write it out:

I mean, maybe the error could be spelled differently:
": perhaps an F/D conflict?"
Right now we have two exactly the same errors,
as seen on the output. The messages refer to different
conflicts, though. It is usually useful to know what is really
going on.

Perhaps, but I think the bigger issue is that existing D/F or
F/D conflict detection is simply buggy, and this patch shouldn't
be needed if they were working correctly.