Re: Strange merge failure (would be overwritten by merge / cannot merge)

From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Sep 6, 2009, 20:42 UTC
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.01.0909061338350.8946@localhost.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <7vws4bzu7w.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Sun, 6 Sep 2009, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 15 quoted lines

> 
> The reason I brought up adding the "candidate for the earliest name"
> interface to the function was to avoid a case where the index has
> 
>     blob "t"
>     blob "t-f"
> 
> and all the trees being merged have
> 
>     blob "t-f"
>     tree "t"
> 
> in which case the "Are we supposed to look at the index too?" logic in
> unpack_callback() may not catch the "t-f" entry from the index when the
> first callback from traverse_trees() feeds it "t-f".

I agree. It's why I initially wanted to do it _all_ in the unpack_callback() thing, but the more I tried, the more complex it got.

So now my plan is to do the conflict handling at a tree level in traverse_trees(), and get rid of the use of 'df_name_compare()' just there first.

The index case is slightly easier, as we can go back-and-forth in the source index (we do try to avoid it right now, but that's a small optimization rather than anything fundamental), so the index we can traverse in a more flexible manner, and find the 't' conflict that way.

		Linus