From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] merge: improve inexact rename limit warning Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 03:02:33 -0500 Message-ID: <20110223080232.GA2724@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20110219101936.GB20577@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20110219102051.GA22508@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vzkppgdz9.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20110222153909.GB27178@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vsjvfdhzy.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Linus Torvalds , Martin Langhoff , Git Mailing List To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Feb 23 09:02:45 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ps9gI-0006Y8-El for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Wed, 23 Feb 2011 09:02:42 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752729Ab1BWICg (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Feb 2011 03:02:36 -0500 Received: from xen6.gtisc.gatech.edu ([143.215.130.70]:35990 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752624Ab1BWICf (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Feb 2011 03:02:35 -0500 Received: (qmail 10008 invoked by uid 111); 23 Feb 2011 08:02:34 -0000 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (99.108.226.0) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with ESMTPA; Wed, 23 Feb 2011 08:02:34 +0000 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 23 Feb 2011 03:02:33 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vsjvfdhzy.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 10:46:57AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> This conflicts with 2840824 (diffcore-rename: fall back to -C when -C -C > >> busts the rename limit, 2011-01-06) on 'pu', unfortunately. > > > > Do you want to do the merge, or do you want me to rebase on top of > > 2840824? > > Please check the resolution queued on 'pu'; I suspect that your series > should graduate before the fall-back-to-c-from-c-c topic, so I'd rather > not to see you rebase this. It looks sane to me. I was going to say we should also have merge-recursive check for the fallback-to-c flag and tell the user what happened, but I don't think merge-recursive ever has FIND_COPIES_HARDER enabled. Which I think means in 2840824 itself, the warning about fallback can never be triggered (because merge-recursive is the only caller who turned on warn_on_too_large_rename). -Peff