From: Junio C Hamano Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2007 06:14:21 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] merge-tree: sometimes, d/f conflict is not an issue Message-ID: <7vwsxb4e2q.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> In-Reply-To: <7v644v5tr3.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Junio C Hamano writes: > Johannes Schindelin writes: > ... >> Okay, so you're saying that merge-recursive should use the aggressive >> strategy? > > I do not think so. Isn't the whole "see if there are renames" thing > depend on threeway_merge() not resolving "one side removes other > side leaves intact" case itself? Aggressive resolves it saying > "Ok that is a remove", which risks it to miss the case in which > that the side that apparently "removed" the path in fact moved > it somewhere else. > > The last time I looked at merge-recursive's D/F check, I found > that it was not quite doing things right. I may be able to dig > up what I posted to the list... It was from around April 7th-10th this year. http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/43970/focus=44158 http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/43971/focus=43997 I think the case described in the latter message is almost the opposite case of what your patch tries to deal with. In the web interface of http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git the patch series that led to my complaints are at around page 76 for me.