The first test did not run on msysGit due to the SYMLINKS constraint and
so subsequent tests failed because the test repository was not initialized.
Signed-off-by: Pat Thoyts <patthoyts@users.sourceforge.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
In merge-recursive.c, whenever there was a rename where a file name on one
side of the rename matches a directory name on the other side of the merge,
then the very first check that
string_list_has_string(&o->current_directory_set, ren1_dst)
would trigger forcing it into marking it as a rename/directory conflict.
However, if the path is only renamed on one side and a simple three-way
merge between the separate files resolves cleanly, then we don't need to
mark it as a rename/directory conflict. So, we can simply move the check
for rename/directory conflicts after we've verified that there isn't a
rename/rename conflict and that a threeway content merge doesn't work.
This changes the particular error message one gets in the case where the
directory name that a file on one side of the rename matches is not also
part of the rename pair. For example, with commits containing the files:
COMMON -> (HEAD, MERGE )
--------- --------------- -------
sub/file1 -> (sub/file1, newsub)
<NULL> -> (newsub/newfile, <NULL>)
then previously when one tried to merge MERGE into HEAD, one would get
CONFLICT (rename/directory): Rename sub/file1->newsub in HEAD directory newsub added in merge
Renaming sub/file1 to newsub~HEAD instead
Adding newsub/newfile
Automatic merge failed; fix conflicts and then commit the result.
After this patch, the error message will instead become:
Removing newsub
Adding newsub/newfile
CONFLICT (file/directory): There is a directory with name newsub in merge. Adding newsub as newsub~HEAD
Automatic merge failed; fix conflicts and then commit the result.
That makes more sense to me, because git can't know that there's a conflict
until after it's tried resolving paths involving newsub/newfile to see if
they are still in the way at the end (and if newsub/newfile is not in the
way at the end, there should be no conflict at all, which did not hold with
git previously).
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
When one side of a file rename matches a directory name on the other side,
the recursive merge strategy will fail. This is true even if the merge is
trivially resolvable.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The rename logic in process_renames() handles renames and merging of file
contents and then marks files as processed. However, there may be higher
stage entries left in the index for other reasons (e.g., due to D/F
conflicts). By checking for such cases and marking the entry as not
processed, it allows process_entry() later to look at it and handle those
higher stages.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This is a simple testcase where both sides of the rename are paths involved
in (separate) D/F merge conflicts
Signed-off-by: Alexander Gladysh <agladysh@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Pat Thoyts
Elijah Newren
Alexander Gladysh