Re: [PATCH] Fix segfault in merge-recursive
- From
Dave O <cxreg@pobox.com>
- Date
- May 8, 2009, 21:41 UTC
- Message-ID
- <alpine.DEB.2.00.0905081436070.30999@narbuckle.genericorp.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <alpine.DEB.1.00.0905082229520.4601@intel-tinevez-2-302>
On Fri, 8 May 2009, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
Show 5 quoted lines
> > When there is no "common" tree (for whatever reason), we must not > throw a segmentation fault. > > Noticed by Dave O.
While this patch does prevent a segfault, it totally fails to recognize any conflicts in the merge. Reverting 36e3b5e produces an ordinary merge conflict with some rename/delete conflicts, and others including content related conflicts. I'm not sure I wouldn't rather have the segfault than the grossly incorrect automerge.
I'll continue debugging the triggering condition to see if I can understand why the index is left dirty, leading to this NULL tree.
Thanks!
Dave