Re: [PATCH 0/6] Add merge recursive testcases with undetected conflicts

> On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 1:22 PM, Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 10:53 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> When a merge succeeds, we expect the resulting contents to depend only
>>>> upon the trees and blobs of the branches involved and of their merge
>>>> base(s).  Unfortunately, there are currently about half a dozen cases
>>>> where the contents of a "successful" merge depend on the relative
>>>> commit timestamps of the merge bases.  Document these with testcases.
>>>>
>>>> (This series came out of looking at modifying how file collision
>>>> conflict types are handled, as discussed at [1].  I discovered these
>>>> issues while working on that topic.)
>>>
>>> I have a topic branch for this series but not merged to 'pu' as
>>> test-lint gives these:
>>>
> ...
>>
>> ... here's a fixup to the topic; as you pointed out, the exact contents
>> of the script being written were actually irrelevant; it was just an
>> input to a merge.
>>
>> -- 8< --
>> Subject: [PATCH] fixup! t6036: add a failed conflict detection case: regular
>>  files, different modes
>>
>
> Does a 'fixup!' commit require a Signed-off-by?  Just realized that
> this one didn't have it, though I don't know if it's necessary.  If it
> is:
>
> Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>