Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] correct ce_compare_data() in a middle of a merge

["Torsten Bögershausen" <tboegi@web.de>]

On 07/08/2016 06:36 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Torsten Bögershausen <tboegi@web.de> writes:
>
>>> I dunno.  I really do not like that extra sha1 argument added all
>>> over the callchain by this patch.
>>>
>>> Or did you mean other calls to add_cacheinfo()?
>>
>> I didn't mean too much - the whole call chain touches code where I
>> am not able to comment on details.
>> I'm happy to test other implementations, if someone suggests a
>> path, so to say.
>
> I did a bit of experiment.
>
> When 1/3 alone is applied, and then only changes for t/t6038 from
> 3/3 is picked, (i.e. we do not add the extra "don't look at index,
> check this contents"), your "Merge addition of text=auto eol=CRLF"
> test would fail.
>
> And then with this further on top:
>
> diff --git a/merge-recursive.c b/merge-recursive.c
> index b880ae5..628c8ed 100644
> --- a/merge-recursive.c
> +++ b/merge-recursive.c
> @@ -202,6 +202,9 @@ static int add_cacheinfo(unsigned int mode, const unsigned char *sha1,
>  		const char *path, int stage, int refresh, int options)
>  {
>  	struct cache_entry *ce;
> +
> +	if (!stage)
> +		remove_file_from_cache(path);
>  	ce = make_cache_entry(mode, sha1 ? sha1 : null_sha1, path, stage,
>  			      (refresh ? (CE_MATCH_REFRESH |
>  					  CE_MATCH_IGNORE_MISSING) : 0 ));
>
Thanks :-)
Did that experiment made it to a branch somewhere ?