From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: merge doesn't remove files Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 02:40:38 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: References: <20070203224819.20131.qmail@b1b53206edee41.315fe32.mid.smarden.org> <7vy7nezr1f.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7vd54qzoka.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20070204045933.GC16766@spearce.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org, Alex Riesen , Johannes Schindelin , Gerrit Pape To: "Shawn O. Pearce" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Feb 04 11:40:58 2007 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 1HDenp-0002Bw-0N for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sun, 04 Feb 2007 11:40:57 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752266AbXBDKk4 (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Feb 2007 05:40:56 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752265AbXBDKkz (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Feb 2007 05:40:55 -0500 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.24]:36218 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752266AbXBDKky (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Feb 2007 05:40:54 -0500 Received: from shell0.pdx.osdl.net (fw.osdl.org [65.172.181.6]) by smtp.osdl.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id l14AedQ5001370 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Sun, 4 Feb 2007 02:40:42 -0800 Received: from localhost (shell0.pdx.osdl.net [10.9.0.31]) by shell0.pdx.osdl.net (8.13.1/8.11.6) with ESMTP id l14AecIk027443; Sun, 4 Feb 2007 02:40:38 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20070204045933.GC16766@spearce.org> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.389 required=5 tests=AWL X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63-osdl_revision__1.111__ X-MIMEDefang-Filter: osdl$Revision: 1.173 $ X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.36 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sat, 3 Feb 2007, Shawn O. Pearce wrote: > > But that tree-ish doesn't have to be the first non-base > argument to merge-recursive, does it? In practice it usually is, > but can I assume it in the code? Yes, the first branch is supposed to be the "current" one. That's the one we compare to the index, and that we should already error out on if the index doesn't match the tree. So yeah, a file should ever be removed only if it existed in the old index (and by implication in the first branch, since otherwise we should have failed the merge as not having a clean tree anyway). Linus