Re: [PATCH 1/3] t6423: add tests of dual directory rename plus add/add conflict

>
> Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> writes:
> > Ah, I can see you've looked at this very closely.  Thanks for digging
> > in!   I know it's counter-intuitive at first, but the file is
> > necessary in order to get the sub1/ -> sub3/ rename.  The reasoning is
> > as follows: We don't need to detect a directory rename for a directory
> > where the other side added no new files into that directory...because
> > the whole point of directory renames is to move new files in a
> > directory to the new location.  Therefore, no new files in the
> > directory on one side, means no need to detect a directory rename for
> > it on the other side.  For a deeper discussion of this, see commit
> > c64432aacd (t6423: more involved rules for renaming directories into
> > each other, 2020-10-15).
>
> Thanks! This makes sense. Might be worth including as a comment
> (explaining why "newfile" is there) in the test.