Re: [PATCH] Fix for a merge where a branch has an F->D transition

2009/5/20 Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref]:

On Mon, 11 May 2009, Alex Riesen wrote:

quoted

Some path names which transitioned from file to a directory were not
updated in the final part of the merge (loop around unmerged entries in
merge_trees), because the branch in process_renames which filtered out
updates for the files with the same content ("merged same as existing")
has left the rename entry in processed state. In this case, the
processing cannot be finished at the process_renames phase (because
the old file still blocks creation of directory where new files should
appear), and must be postponed until the update_entry phase.

I know that as a German, I am supposed to like long sentences and crowded
paragraphs.  Maybe I am not that German after all.

Will be shortened.

quoted

diff --git a/merge-recursive.c b/merge-recursive.c
index a3721ef..3c5420b 100644
--- a/merge-recursive.c
+++ b/merge-recursive.c

@@ -980,14 +980,15 @@ static int process_renames(struct merge_options *o,

                              if (mfi.clean &&
                                  sha_eq(mfi.sha, ren1->pair->two->sha1) &&
-                                 mfi.mode == ren1->pair->two->mode)
+                                 mfi.mode == ren1->pair->two->mode) {
                                      /*
                                       * This messaged is part of
                                       * t6022 test. If you change
                                       * it update the test too.
                                       */
                                      output(o, 3, "Skipped %s (merged same as existing)", ren1_dst);
-                             else {
+                                     ren1->dst_entry->processed = 0;
+                             } else {

So basically, you say that a dst_entry has not been processed, when it
_has_ been?  That cannot be correct...

My feeling exactly. I'm afraid I just zeroed the effect of the branch
which should avoid rewriting of files with known same content.
It's just that the code has grown a little confusing...
I'm still thinking about how to avoid unneeded rewrites of the files
with same content under same name.