From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] merge-tree: sometimes, d/f conflict is not an issue Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2007 23:14:21 -0700 Message-ID: <7vwsxb4e2q.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <20070405071615.2915.6837.reportbug@acer> <20070607074357.27760.qmail@69aef7b888effd.315fe32.mid.smarden.org> <6b8a91420706070252y3fd581a3w427d91e5b982d29d@mail.gmail.com> <20070613091624.26463.qmail@353090644b4917.315fe32.mid.smarden.org> <20070613134336.13661.qmail@c61f4fed932273.315fe32.mid.smarden.org> <20070625071819.8091.qmail@5e4088a43a10fd.315fe32.mid.smarden.org> <7vabu765r0.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7v644v5tr3.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Gerrit Pape , git@vger.kernel.org, =?utf-8?Q?R?= =?utf-8?Q?=C3=A9mi?= Vanicat To: Johannes Schindelin X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Jul 08 08:14:40 2007 connect(): Connection refused Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1I7Q2X-0000Dq-Iv for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sun, 08 Jul 2007 08:14:37 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752398AbXGHGOZ (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Jul 2007 02:14:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751988AbXGHGOZ (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Jul 2007 02:14:25 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao107.cox.net ([68.230.241.39]:39805 "EHLO fed1rmmtao107.cox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751897AbXGHGOY (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Jul 2007 02:14:24 -0400 Received: from fed1rmimpo02.cox.net ([70.169.32.72]) by fed1rmmtao107.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20070708061422.RBAL22777.fed1rmmtao107.cox.net@fed1rmimpo02.cox.net>; Sun, 8 Jul 2007 02:14:22 -0400 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.5.247.80]) by fed1rmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id LuEM1X00F1kojtg0000000; Sun, 08 Jul 2007 02:14:22 -0400 In-Reply-To: <7v644v5tr3.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Sat, 07 Jul 2007 22:50:24 -0700") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Junio C Hamano writes: > Johannes Schindelin writes: > ... >> Okay, so you're saying that merge-recursive should use the aggressive >> strategy? > > I do not think so. Isn't the whole "see if there are renames" thing > depend on threeway_merge() not resolving "one side removes other > side leaves intact" case itself? Aggressive resolves it saying > "Ok that is a remove", which risks it to miss the case in which > that the side that apparently "removed" the path in fact moved > it somewhere else. > > The last time I looked at merge-recursive's D/F check, I found > that it was not quite doing things right. I may be able to dig > up what I posted to the list... It was from around April 7th-10th this year. http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/43970/focus=44158 http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/43971/focus=43997 I think the case described in the latter message is almost the opposite case of what your patch tries to deal with. In the web interface of http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git the patch series that led to my complaints are at around page 76 for me.