From: Elijah Newren Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 04:02:32 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] Add merge recursive testcases with undetected conflicts Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20180709202229.10222-1-newren@gmail.com> On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 1:22 PM, Elijah Newren wrote: > On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 10:53 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Elijah Newren writes: >> >>> When a merge succeeds, we expect the resulting contents to depend only >>> upon the trees and blobs of the branches involved and of their merge >>> base(s). Unfortunately, there are currently about half a dozen cases >>> where the contents of a "successful" merge depend on the relative >>> commit timestamps of the merge bases. Document these with testcases. >>> >>> (This series came out of looking at modifying how file collision >>> conflict types are handled, as discussed at [1]. I discovered these >>> issues while working on that topic.) >> >> I have a topic branch for this series but not merged to 'pu' as >> test-lint gives these: >> ... > > ... here's a fixup to the topic; as you pointed out, the exact contents > of the script being written were actually irrelevant; it was just an > input to a merge. > > -- 8< -- > Subject: [PATCH] fixup! t6036: add a failed conflict detection case: regular > files, different modes > Does a 'fixup!' commit require a Signed-off-by? Just realized that this one didn't have it, though I don't know if it's necessary. If it is: Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren