From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 08:02:33 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] merge: improve inexact rename limit warning
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:

> >> 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