From: Dave O <cxreg@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 21:41:21 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix segfault in merge-recursive
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:

>
> 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