Thread (13 messages) flat view 13 messages, 4 authors, 2016-06-15

Re: [PATCH 4/5] merge_recursive: Fix renames across paths below D/F conflicts

From: Elijah Newren <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:49:01

On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 1:54 AM, Miklos Vajna [off-list ref] wrote:
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 07:12:15PM -0600, newren@gmail.com wrote:
quoted
I'm a little uneasy with this change, mainly because I don't fully
understand the rename processing logic (I was actually kind of surprised
when I made these changes and it worked).  Although I verified that
these changes (and my others in this patch series) introduce no new
breakages in the testsuite and even fix a known issue, I'm still not
quite sure I follow the logic well enough to feel fully confident in
this change.  I'm particularly worried I may have neglected some closely
related cases that I should have fixed but which may still be broken.
Same here, I touched merge-recursive, but not this part of it, so others
will give you a better review, I'm sure. :)

Other than that, I like it, thanks!
Oh, it looks like I was off by a couple lines when trying to read the
authorship out of git blame -C -C.  You touched lines that were pretty
close, but it looks like this if block was actually due to Alex.  So
I'll add him to the cc.

Alex: I think the basic idea is just that the rename logic isn't aware
that there may be higher stage entries in the index due to D/F
conflicts; by checking for such cases and marking the entry as not
processed, it allows process_entry() later to look at it and handle
those higher stages.  But I'm not sure if that's the right way to
handle it, or if just having process_renames() should take care of
clearing out the higher stage entries, or if something else entirely
should be done.

Thanks,
Elijah
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help