From: Junio C Hamano Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 23:23:16 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] t6024: fix timing problem Message-ID: <7vvekgog0r.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> In-Reply-To: Johannes Schindelin writes: > This script tests a complicated merge, where _all_ files conflict. In > these circumstances, the ordering of the commits -- which is affected > not by the timestamps in the commit message -- becomes a deciding factor > of the merge result. "not by the timestamps", or "by the timestamps"? I am confused... Do you mean the commit timestamps affect which merge base commit becomes ours and theirs during the computation of the virtual merge base commit? That certainly explains the problem. > How about this: if there is an add/add conflict, we treat it as > if there _was_ an empty file, and we let the shiny new xdl_merge() > find the _true_ conflicts, _instead of_ removing the file from > the index, adding both files with different "~blabla" markers > appended to their file names to the working directory. I was not thinking about this t6024 test failure problem but was wondering about doing exactly that in merge-recursive to match the "two file merge" magic we have in git-merge-one-file.sh --- I guess great minds do think alike ;-).