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

[Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>]

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>