From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] modify/delete conflict resolution overwrites untracked file Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 15:36:11 -0800 Message-ID: <7voczjy55g.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <20081210201259.GA12928@localhost> <7vzlj3ycr4.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <20081210211147.GA13624@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Johannes Schindelin , Alex Riesen To: Clemens Buchacher X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Dec 11 00:37:42 2008 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 1LAYce-0003HT-4d for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 00:37:40 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754762AbYLJXgW (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Dec 2008 18:36:22 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754702AbYLJXgW (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Dec 2008 18:36:22 -0500 Received: from a-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:37153 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754011AbYLJXgW (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Dec 2008 18:36:22 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D4DD18954; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 18:36:19 -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 B431D18922; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 18:36:13 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <20081210211147.GA13624@localhost> (Clemens Buchacher's message of "Wed, 10 Dec 2008 22:11:47 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 58A21522-C713-11DD-9E3E-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: > On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 12:51:59PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Clemens Buchacher writes: >> >> > If it's a regression, it dates far back, since 1.5.0 fails as well. >> >> A good lit(h)mus test to see if it is a regression or just a plain bug in >> the recursive strategy would be to see what 'resolve' strategy does >> (replace "merge" with "merge -s resolve" in your test). > > "merge -s resolve" fails with > > Trying really trivial in-index merge... > error: Merge requires file-level merging > Nope. > Trying simple merge. > Simple merge failed, trying Automatic merge. > ERROR: c1.c: Not handling case ae9304576a6ec3419b231b2b9c8e33a06f97f9fb -> > -> 8173b675dc61bb578b411c769c9fb654625a7c4e > fatal: merge program failed > Automatic merge failed; fix conflicts and then commit the result. > > and therefore passes the test. Are you saying that: (1) the step should result in conflict and the merge should fail, but it should not clobber c1.c nevertheless; and (2) resolve fails to merge (as expected), and it does not clobber c1.c (as expected); therefore it passes the test. If so, then you now established that it is a bug in merge-recursive, right [implementors of recursive-in-C CC'ed]? Or are you saying that the step should not fail to begin with?