Re: "fatal: Untracked working tree file 'so-and-so' would be overwritten by merge"
- From
Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
- Date
- Oct 10, 2006, 06:32 UTC
- Message-ID
- <7vfydw7kao.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <Pine.LNX.4.64.0610090858120.3952@g5.osdl.org>
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> writes:
Show 12 quoted lines
> On Sun, 8 Oct 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> >> Note note note. The above patch alone leaves merge risky to >> remove an untracked working tree files, and needs to be >> compensated by corresponding checks to the git-merge-xxx >> strategies. The original code was overcautious, but was >> protecting valid cases too. > > I think the difference _should_ be that we only remove the local file if > it was removed _remotely_. >... > Agreed?
I reviewed the patch I sent out, the one after the one you responded to, and I think it (which is the one I have in "pu") is in line with the reasoning you outlined in your message.