From: Junio C Hamano Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 18:20:30 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] merge-recursive: handle D/F conflict case more carefully. Message-ID: <7vabxgw0pd.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> In-Reply-To: <81b0412b0704100140g7684e128g75c986c213ac9d0f@mail.gmail.com> "Alex Riesen" writes: > On 4/9/07, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Alex Riesen writes: >> >> > Junio C Hamano, Sat, Apr 07, 2007 16:42:55 +0200: >> >> + if (unlink(path)) { >> >> + if (errno == EISDIR) { >> >> + /* something else exists */ >> >> + error(msg, path, ": perhaps a D/F conflict?"); >> > >> > isn't this one an F/D conflict? >> >> Yes, as I said in a separate message, the current D/F detector >> code in merge-recursive does not catch this case in t3030 test >> and comes to this codepath to write it out: >> > > I mean, maybe the error could be spelled differently: > ": perhaps an F/D conflict?" > Right now we have two exactly the same errors, > as seen on the output. The messages refer to different > conflicts, though. It is usually useful to know what is really > going on. Perhaps, but I think the bigger issue is that existing D/F or F/D conflict detection is simply buggy, and this patch shouldn't be needed if they were working correctly.