Re: [PATCH 4/5] merge-recursive: handle D/F conflict case more carefully.

[Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>]

"Alex Riesen" <raa.lkml@gmail.com> writes:

> On 4/9/07, Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> wrote:
>> Alex Riesen <raa.lkml@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > Junio C Hamano, Sat, Apr 07, 2007 16:42:55 +0200:
>> >> +                    if (unlink(path)) {
>> >> +                            if (errno == EISDIR) {
>> >> +                                    /* something else exists */
>> >> +                                    error(msg, path, ": perhaps a D/F conflict?");
>> >
>> > isn't this one an F/D conflict?
>>
>> Yes, as I said in a separate message, the current D/F detector
>> code in merge-recursive does not catch this case in t3030 test
>> and comes to this codepath to write it out:
>>
>
> I mean, maybe the error could be spelled differently:
> ": perhaps an F/D conflict?"
> Right now we have two exactly the same errors,
> as seen on the output. The messages refer to different
> conflicts, though. It is usually useful to know what is really
> going on.

Perhaps, but I think the bigger issue is that existing D/F or
F/D conflict detection is simply buggy, and this patch shouldn't
be needed if they were working correctly.