From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A5C3201C2 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 01:19:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752306AbdKNBTF (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Nov 2017 20:19:05 -0500 Received: from mail-ua0-f178.google.com ([209.85.217.178]:43236 "EHLO mail-ua0-f178.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752250AbdKNBTE (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Nov 2017 20:19:04 -0500 Received: by mail-ua0-f178.google.com with SMTP id q18so11755481uaa.0 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 17:19:04 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=rShas7hrNICuDeo2v1PgC/Iu3uxakxERbMh7IH1c0ME=; b=n14cO8lOWmmbH+xr3NL5NXQkR3NiZ43LPfltab7vCyaKB3g9kwyp5NkfI2+c7sNHX/ hhgb1uZzXB8GBxYRnNp+9z/P41r5Wejx6SkiQZBzeeN7sXZqVlRyAKXSVr+LipHhGAsq er1njh+ZNidJ5Ba81qB3gdYzNktBxlx0bI0xGGhHJUEAl8X5zFalkA+WgUqqZEM5NrRp crNInugJHa2Qy3EcjkVxEk85w7nn11lp2yQBQc5qnr/Sec9Tvzc1uuOwlzyEe908LQiN SOOEaVp3XPSoOe5W5tJbyU2iVkE60TgXedP+IS2+XWEBTvd2WtpbkXMjF5gb1/4IyQ0X YT+g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=rShas7hrNICuDeo2v1PgC/Iu3uxakxERbMh7IH1c0ME=; b=b8M2bc321LMzxW8dxnxiV9JHWTWpteXn6cg4qMON0R5yrfh93IwGxHEREGLtxhIKQy Tzkgr84yDuVg4/1kbz6MRkWu/aQqs2Oq73wTvoTXLT7ap1Krv4MNgKlS1D2rmqU7hFly 8fXE2VdcbcKiXDSXf8LNXI2MsO2llu1ITIMUvKCen3F6mf2h29zC2l9K52Xcs4zQacgj +gfwtjJKKYUxBR10g4BrLPe8MwWbMQ1taGPpyWRCRCkwInOmzak7GogikSFWAs5hMvzd VziYoBFplwOhaK2D2VzdHxdEG8wJ9YGwpDHGk7powtNrfcT4MydH5Tp6vjWOzy6B1n83 0Vbg== X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX50hxXUQOkIktda7tLu72HRrSTkc0yqC5JrWCCWurQdgYXfVq/L gBl8LU0nnWIezFctATeKfLkGng9n+LPFJ3pbpUE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMY3Uf9QCHIoJSVjg90SVDwiZSrkRMDP69sT2O0hVLQsBpBTvlcXlUy03HX/4a2AXNccK2ka/0ZPPnB+owj4V4s= X-Received: by 10.159.62.1 with SMTP id o1mr9709331uai.123.1510622343293; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 17:19:03 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.176.67.33 with HTTP; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 17:19:02 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20171110190550.27059-1-newren@gmail.com> <20171110190550.27059-9-newren@gmail.com> From: Elijah Newren Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 17:19:02 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/30] directory rename detection: files/directories in the way of some renames To: Stefan Beller Cc: git Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Stefan Beller wrote: > On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Elijah Newren wrote: >> +# Testcase 5c, Transitive rename would cause rename/rename/rename/add/add/add >> +# (Directory rename detection would result in transitive rename vs. >> +# rename/rename(1to2) and turn it into a rename/rename(1to3). Further, >> +# rename paths conflict with separate adds on the other side) >> +# (Related to testcases 3b and 7c) >> +# Commit A: z/{b,c}, x/d_1 >> +# Commit B: y/{b,c,d_2}, w/d_1 >> +# Commit C: z/{b,c,d_1,e}, w/d_3, y/d_4 >> +# Expected: A mess, but only a rename/rename(1to2)/add/add mess. Use the >> +# presence of y/d_4 in C to avoid doing transitive rename of >> +# x/d_1 -> z/d_1 -> y/d_1, so that the only paths we have at >> +# y/d are y/d_2 and y/d_4. We still do the move from z/e to y/e, >> +# though, because it doesn't have anything in the way. > > Missing the expected state, only the explanation is given. Yeah...it seemed so ugly to try to write down. As a possible sidenote, this testcase was actually guided by the final test of t6042, which is messy enough, but directory rename detection provides a little extra freedom to get a higher order conflict and make things a bit messier. It felt like it was a case where just leaving the expectation in code in the 5c-check was just easier and maybe even clearer. Should I add a comment to that effect, or would you really just prefer to see it spelled out? >> falling >> +# back to old handling. But, sadly, see testcases 8a and 8b. > > You seem to be hinting at these all the time. I think there were just multiple angles at which to approach those testcases. *shrug*