Re: [PATCH 0/6] Add merge recursive testcases with undetected conflicts

Elijah Newren [off-list ref] writes:

On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 1:22 PM, Elijah Newren [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 10:53 AM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Elijah Newren [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

When a merge succeeds, we expect the resulting contents to depend only
upon the trees and blobs of the branches involved and of their merge
base(s).  Unfortunately, there are currently about half a dozen cases
where the contents of a "successful" merge depend on the relative
commit timestamps of the merge bases.  Document these with testcases.

(This series came out of looking at modifying how file collision
conflict types are handled, as discussed at [1].  I discovered these
issues while working on that topic.)

I have a topic branch for this series but not merged to 'pu' as
test-lint gives these:

...

quoted

... here's a fixup to the topic; as you pointed out, the exact contents
of the script being written were actually irrelevant; it was just an
input to a merge.

-- 8< --
Subject: [PATCH] fixup! t6036: add a failed conflict detection case: regular
 files, different modes

Does a 'fixup!' commit require a Signed-off-by?  Just realized that
this one didn't have it, though I don't know if it's necessary.  If it
is:

Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <redacted>

Thanks.  I queued it separately before running out of time Monday,
but will actually squash it in to the main patch.