From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: "fatal: Untracked working tree file 'so-and-so' would be overwritten by merge" Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 23:32:31 -0700 Message-ID: <7vfydw7kao.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <7v7izaf62c.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7vodsmdq0m.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Oct 10 08:32:56 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GXBAK-00037a-T8 for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 08:32:37 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965019AbWJJGcd (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Oct 2006 02:32:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965020AbWJJGcd (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Oct 2006 02:32:33 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao01.cox.net ([68.230.241.38]:53495 "EHLO fed1rmmtao01.cox.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965019AbWJJGcc (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Oct 2006 02:32:32 -0400 Received: from fed1rmimpo02.cox.net ([70.169.32.72]) by fed1rmmtao01.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with ESMTP id <20061010063231.KDO6077.fed1rmmtao01.cox.net@fed1rmimpo02.cox.net>; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 02:32:31 -0400 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.5.247.80]) by fed1rmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id YWYa1V00H1kojtg0000000 Tue, 10 Oct 2006 02:32:35 -0400 To: Linus Torvalds In-Reply-To: (Linus Torvalds's message of "Mon, 9 Oct 2006 09:03:08 -0700 (PDT)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Linus Torvalds writes: > On Sun, 8 Oct 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> >> Note note note. The above patch alone leaves merge risky to >> remove an untracked working tree files, and needs to be >> compensated by corresponding checks to the git-merge-xxx >> strategies. The original code was overcautious, but was >> protecting valid cases too. > > I think the difference _should_ be that we only remove the local file if > it was removed _remotely_. >... > Agreed? I reviewed the patch I sent out, the one after the one you responded to, and I think it (which is the one I have in "pu") is in line with the reasoning you outlined in your message.