From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: unpack-trees: fix D/F conflict bugs in verify_absent Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2009 13:28:22 -0800 Message-ID: <7vfxk2hg21.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <1230843273-11056-1-git-send-email-drizzd@aon.at> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, gitster@pobox.com To: Clemens Buchacher X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Jan 01 22:29:53 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 1LIV72-0004JT-Pp for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 01 Jan 2009 22:29:53 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752532AbZAAV2c (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Jan 2009 16:28:32 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752164AbZAAV2c (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Jan 2009 16:28:32 -0500 Received: from a-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:33289 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751804AbZAAV2b (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Jan 2009 16:28:31 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB8371B8BB; Thu, 1 Jan 2009 16:28:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [68.225.240.211]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by b-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E11191B8D9; Thu, 1 Jan 2009 16:28:24 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <1230843273-11056-1-git-send-email-drizzd@aon.at> (Clemens Buchacher's message of "Thu, 1 Jan 2009 21:54:30 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 22289AFE-D84B-11DD-8918-F83E113D384A-77302942!a-sasl-quonix.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Clemens Buchacher writes: > I came across a few bugs while investigating the changes I proposed in the > modify/delete conflict thread. The first two are quite obvious. The third I'm > not so sure about. I could not find a testcase where it matters. Junio, do you > recall the original intention of that code? Thanks, but I see only [PATCH 1/3] and [PATCH 2/3] (both of which look sane, by the way).