Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010, Junio C Hamano wrote:
quoted
By the way, do you think anybody still uses "git merge-trees"?
IMO this is the only viable way to a non-broken merge-recursive. Removing
it would be counterproductive.
Do you mean you don't think
Subject: Re: git-merge segfault in 1.6.6 and master
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:38:56 -0800
Message-ID: [off-list ref]
...
In the meantime, I think applying this patch is the right thing to do.
-- >8 --
Subject: merge-recursive: do not return NULL only to cause segfault
would help us?
Hi,
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010, Junio C Hamano wrote:
quoted
By the way, do you think anybody still uses "git merge-trees"?
IMO this is the only viable way to a non-broken merge-recursive. Removing
it would be counterproductive.
Do you mean you don't think
Subject: Re: git-merge segfault in 1.6.6 and master
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:38:56 -0800
Message-ID: [off-list ref]
...
In the meantime, I think applying this patch is the right thing to do.
-- >8 --
Subject: merge-recursive: do not return NULL only to cause segfault
would help us?
Sorry, I cannot have a look at this now.
But in the long run, I think that it gets tiring to chase all kinds of
weird interactions between unpack_trees(), the rename detection and the
recursive merge.
I could see merge-trees as a viable alternative approach.
Ciao,
Dscho