From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: correct git merge behavior or corner case? Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 15:27:18 -0400 Message-ID: <20090421192718.GA7832@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <2FE32A75-C0D9-4156-B5D2-61AC6C086E5F@teksol.info> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: =?utf-8?B?RnJhbsOnb2lz?= Beausoleil X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Apr 21 21:29:05 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LwLeR-0002wQ-PI for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 21:29:04 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757662AbZDUT1X convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Apr 2009 15:27:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757745AbZDUT1W (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Apr 2009 15:27:22 -0400 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:58391 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757425AbZDUT1V (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Apr 2009 15:27:21 -0400 Received: (qmail 11077 invoked by uid 107); 21 Apr 2009 19:27:29 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) SMTP; Tue, 21 Apr 2009 15:27:29 -0400 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 21 Apr 2009 15:27:18 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2FE32A75-C0D9-4156-B5D2-61AC6C086E5F@teksol.info> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:50:25AM -0400, Fran=C3=A7ois Beausoleil wrot= e: > Regarding Anders reproduction recipe, no file was deleted. I'm tryin= g to=20 > write a reproduction script, but haven't managed to reproduce it just= yet.=20 > The steps I *think* happened are thus: If there is no deletion, then that seems like it might actually be a bug. > But the bug isn't reproduced with these steps. If you want access to= the=20 > repository, please contact me privately and I'll give you access. I can take a look at it if you want to mail me the details off-list. > Johannes, you were right: I should have found the right avenue for =20 > posting this question and done so. If not immediately, at least the = next=20 > day. It was late, I had other things to do, I just decided to post a= =20 > quick note. Call me lazy, yes. Incompetent, that's going a bit too = far. =20 > I hope my competence can be redeemed in your eyes. I think it is OK to complain about and discuss git on your blog. That's what it's there for. But I do think you are much more likely to get developer attention and get your problem _fixed_ if you send a message to the mailing list. So I don't think posting on a blog makes you incompetent; but complaining afterwards that git developers didn't read your blog and fix your problem might. ;) -Peff