On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 02:16:25PM -0700, Elijah Newren wrote:
> > > + test_i18ngrep ! CONFLICT out &&
> > > + test_i18ngrep ! BUG: err &&
> >
> > The BUG is gone. But should it not use i18ngrep? BUG() isn't localized.
>
> Technically, yes, you're right. However, this line
> > > +
> > > + test_i18ngrep ! CONFLICT out &&
> > > + test_i18ngrep ! BUG: err &&
> >
> > The BUG is gone. But should it not use i18ngrep? BUG() isn't localized.
>
> Technically, yes, you're right. However, this line's purpose isn't
> correctness of the test but documenta
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 1:28 PM Emily Shaffer wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 03:33:50PM -0700, Elijah Newren wrote:
> > Ever since commit 8c8e5bd6eb33 ("merge-recursive: switch directory
> > rename detection default", 2019-04-05), the default handling with
> > directory rename detection was to
On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 03:33:50PM -0700, Elijah Newren wrote:
> Ever since commit 8c8e5bd6eb33 ("merge-recursive: switch directory
> rename detection default", 2019-04-05), the default handling with
> directory rename detection was to report a conflict and leave unstaged
> entries in the index. H
Junio C Hamano writes:
> I do agree that it is sensible to avoid doing any funky thing during
> the virtual base merges, whose result is much less observable (hence
> harder to form the right mental model in end user's head) than the
> outermost merge. Do we want to allow this for inner merges w
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 10:26 AM Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> Elijah Newren writes:
>
> > I know this bug doesn't satisfy the normal criteria for making it into
> > 2.23 (it's a bug that was present in 2.22 rather than a regression in
> > 2.23), but given that it's a BUG() condition, I was hoping it
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 9:57 AM Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> Elijah Newren writes:
>
> > Ever since commit 8c8e5bd6eb33 ("merge-recursive: switch directory
> > rename detection default", 2019-04-05), the default handling with
> > directory rename detection was to report a conflict and leave unstaged
Elijah Newren writes:
> I know this bug doesn't satisfy the normal criteria for making it into
> 2.23 (it's a bug that was present in 2.22 rather than a regression in
> 2.23), but given that it's a BUG() condition, I was hoping it is
> important and safe enough to include anyway.
For maintenance
Elijah Newren writes:
> Ever since commit 8c8e5bd6eb33 ("merge-recursive: switch directory
> rename detection default", 2019-04-05), the default handling with
> directory rename detection was to report a conflict and leave unstaged
> entries in the index. However, when creating a virtual merge b
Ever since commit 8c8e5bd6eb33 ("merge-recursive: switch directory
rename detection default", 2019-04-05), the default handling with
directory rename detection was to report a conflict and leave unstaged
entries in the index. However, when creating a virtual merge base in
the recursive case, we ab
10 matches
Mail list logo
