From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2016 17:25:52 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] correct ce_compare_data() in a middle of a merge
Message-ID: <xmqq1t34m47z.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <f78fa94d-abd2-05a2-c411-15e2ffdb7dae@web.de>

Torsten Bögershausen <tboegi@web.de> writes:

>> And then with this further on top:
>>
>> diff --git a/merge-recursive.c b/merge-recursive.c
>> index b880ae5..628c8ed 100644
>> --- a/merge-recursive.c
>> +++ b/merge-recursive.c
>> @@ -202,6 +202,9 @@ static int add_cacheinfo(unsigned int mode, const unsigned char *sha1,
>>  		const char *path, int stage, int refresh, int options)
>>  {
>>  	struct cache_entry *ce;
>> +
>> +	if (!stage)
>> +		remove_file_from_cache(path);
>>  	ce = make_cache_entry(mode, sha1 ? sha1 : null_sha1, path, stage,
>>  			      (refresh ? (CE_MATCH_REFRESH |
>>  					  CE_MATCH_IGNORE_MISSING) : 0 ));
>>
> Thanks :-)
> Did that experiment made it to a branch somewhere ?

Not yet.  As I called it "experiment", it was merely to demonstrate
that there are less intrusive ways to kill the "safer crlf" we may
want to consider first before passing an extra blob object name
around.