Re: [PATCH] modify/delete conflict resolution overwrites untracked file

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Dec 11, 2008, 08:13 UTC
Message-ID: <7vtz9bt9ih.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <20081211080752.GA26709@localhost>

Clemens Buchacher <drizzd@aon.at> writes:

Show 26 quoted lines

> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 03:36:11PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Clemens Buchacher <drizzd@aon.at> writes:
>> >
>> > "merge -s resolve" fails with
>> >
>> > Trying really trivial in-index merge...
>> > error: Merge requires file-level merging
>> > Nope.
>> > Trying simple merge.
>> > Simple merge failed, trying Automatic merge.
>> > ERROR: c1.c: Not handling case ae9304576a6ec3419b231b2b9c8e33a06f97f9fb ->
>> > -> 8173b675dc61bb578b411c769c9fb654625a7c4e
>> > fatal: merge program failed
>> > Automatic merge failed; fix conflicts and then commit the result.
>> >
>> > and therefore passes the test.
>> 
>> Are you saying that:
>> 
>>  (1) the step should result in conflict and the merge should fail, but it
>>      should not clobber c1.c nevertheless; and
>> 
>>  (2) resolve fails to merge (as expected), and it does not clobber c1.c
>>      (as expected); therefore it passes the test.
>
> The latter.

I said "and" at the end of (1) so I do not understand your answer, but I take it to mean that both (1) and (2) are true, judging from the rest of your message.

Show 8 quoted lines

>> If so, then you now established that it is a bug in merge-recursive,
>> right [implementors of recursive-in-C CC'ed]?
>
> Correct.
>
>> Or are you saying that the step should not fail to begin with?
>
> No...

Ok, thanks. Unfortunately my git day for this week is over, so I'll try to find time to take a look at what recursive strategy does wrong over the weekend, if nobody gets to it before me.