From: Alex Riesen <raa.lkml@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 08:40:51 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] merge-recursive: handle D/F conflict case more carefully.
Message-ID: <81b0412b0704100140g7684e128g75c986c213ac9d0f@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7vk5wlz5mg.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

On 4/9/07, Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> wrote:
> Alex Riesen <raa.lkml@gmail.com> 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.