From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: Re* [BUG?] "error: cache entry has null sha1" Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2013 03:03:00 -0500 Message-ID: <20131103080300.GA2868@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20131031172116.GA19428@sigill.intra.peff.net> <1383345895-23341-1-git-send-email-gitster@pobox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Nov 03 09:03:27 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Vcseb-0003RY-MO for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Sun, 03 Nov 2013 09:03:26 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752076Ab3KCIDG (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Nov 2013 03:03:06 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:60773 "HELO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1752014Ab3KCIDE (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Nov 2013 03:03:04 -0500 Received: (qmail 28280 invoked by uid 102); 3 Nov 2013 08:03:03 -0000 Received: from c-71-63-4-13.hsd1.va.comcast.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (71.63.4.13) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Sun, 03 Nov 2013 02:03:03 -0600 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun, 03 Nov 2013 03:03:00 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1383345895-23341-1-git-send-email-gitster@pobox.com> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 03:44:52PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Here is a proposed endgame for the topic in a patch form, then. > > I've added a test for low-level "read-tree --reset -u A B", and > tried the "am --abort" I saw the problem with manually, but other > than that, I haven't (re)thought about the issue hard enough to be > comfortable with this change yet. Thanks for moving this forward. I read over the old discussion and the patches, and I think the patch is a good thing. There was some question from me earlier on whether there were other cases we weren't considering. The discussion convinced me that there almost certainly aren't. And even if there are, this is still the right direction. Writing out a bogus CE_CONFLICTED entry is _certainly_ wrong, so even if we do not get the details right (e.g., rejecting a merge we should be accepting), this patch still forms a base for further fixups. > Jeff King (1): > unpack-trees: fix "read-tree -u --reset A B" with conflicted index My missing signoff: Signed-off-by: Jeff King -Peff