Re: [PATCH 1/4] merge: improve inexact rename limit warning
- From
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
- Date
- Feb 23, 2011, 08:02 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20110223080232.GA2724@sigill.intra.peff.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <7vsjvfdhzy.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 10:46:57AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 9 quoted lines
> >> This conflicts with 2840824 (diffcore-rename: fall back to -C when -C -C > >> busts the rename limit, 2011-01-06) on 'pu', unfortunately. > > > > Do you want to do the merge, or do you want me to rebase on top of > > 2840824? > > Please check the resolution queued on 'pu'; I suspect that your series > should graduate before the fall-back-to-c-from-c-c topic, so I'd rather > not to see you rebase this.
It looks sane to me. I was going to say we should also have merge-recursive check for the fallback-to-c flag and tell the user what happened, but I don't think merge-recursive ever has FIND_COPIES_HARDER enabled.
Which I think means in 2840824 itself, the warning about fallback can never be triggered (because merge-recursive is the only caller who turned on warn_on_too_large_rename).
-Peff