Re: [PATCH] merge-tree: sometimes, d/f conflict is not an issue

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Jul 8, 2007, 12:53 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0707081351330.4248@racer.site>
In-Reply-To: <7v644v5tr3.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

Hi,

On Sat, 7 Jul 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 12 quoted lines

> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
> 
> >> IOW, don't make unpack-trees to make policy decisions on final 
> >> resolution, unless it is operating under aggressive rule (where the 
> >> caller explicitly allows it to make more than the "trivial" decisions).  
> >> The caller (in this case, merge-recursive) should see A at stage #2 with 
> >> A/B at stages #1 and #3 and decide what to do.
> >
> > Okay, so you're saying that merge-recursive should use the aggressive 
> > strategy?
> 
> I do not think so.

Yes, I realized that by running the tests with it. A rename A->B in one, and A->C in the other branch will go undetected.

I should have written this into my mail posting the WIP patch, but frankly, I was too tired.

Ciao, Dscho