Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] rerere: mention caveat about unmatched conflict markers

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Aug 29, 2018, 16:04 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqq5zzsajg1.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
In-Reply-To: <20180828212744.18714-1-t.gummerer@gmail.com>

Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@gmail.com> writes:

Show 23 quoted lines

> Yeah that makes sense.  Maybe something like this?
>
> (replying to <xmqq4lffk3ez.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com> here to keep
> the patches in one thread)
>
>  Documentation/technical/rerere.txt | 4 ++++
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/technical/rerere.txt b/Documentation/technical/rerere.txt
> index e65ba9b0c6..8fefe51b00 100644
> --- a/Documentation/technical/rerere.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/technical/rerere.txt
> @@ -149,7 +149,10 @@ version, and the sorting the conflict hunks, both for the outer and the
>  inner conflict.  This is done recursively, so any number of nested
>  conflicts can be handled.
>  
> +Note that this only works for conflict markers that "cleanly nest".  If
> +there are any unmatched conflict markers, rerere will fail to handle
> +the conflict and record a conflict resolution.
> +
>  The only difference is in how the conflict ID is calculated.  For the
>  inner conflict, the conflict markers themselves are not stripped out
>  before calculating the sha1.

Looks good to me except for the line count on the @@ line. The preimage ought to have 6 (not 7) lines and adding 4 new lines makes it a 10 line postimage. I wonder who miscounted the hunk---it is immediately followed by the signature cut mark "-- \n" and some tools (including Emacs's patch editing mode) are known to misinterpret it as a preimage line that was removed.

What is curious is that your 2/2 counts the preimage lines correctly.

In any case, both patches look good.  Will apply.

Thanks.