From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12,DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,T_DKIM_INVALID shortcircuit=no autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32D901F404 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2018 22:37:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727233AbeH3CgI (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Aug 2018 22:36:08 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f66.google.com ([74.125.82.66]:38507 "EHLO mail-wm0-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727212AbeH3CgI (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Aug 2018 22:36:08 -0400 Received: by mail-wm0-f66.google.com with SMTP id t25-v6so33052wmi.3 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2018 15:37:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:from:to:cc:subject:date:references:message-id:user-agent :mime-version; bh=Iz3y/YzA51LR/pd40lgi+dAaCRlZbczZyMW1x9sAJuk=; b=qFdY0T/4tOzl++gShIqChHlXUVaxTonHoUglxl66yEK9oSi3/es8OGYx5WMYabz29k owpn0R+0Hpbg2fndPWqmCZrVkprb0nPcpjgvvjaoBpp65uQ2C+O0VZR+lDAdNvdaw6TV YLrtEIgYSNU+7AmkygQVi1A4epzQcwUcM1fDW1VkY2NmHunGdvFkRmkYHmS4uZ2lkLwG 4aS+Ft4QoKLMw5h8fPsoCLOxCFjj2wemAjGUzqf4faPGVkKvVdAXN9GheB4AmFZmaw9t 0AL9ESDcATO0UGFFdusrd8qkejNfu2dNYquxRTC53gE+VeuhjHwbmV2l71UD6xus4/Kr cLbA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:subject:date:references :message-id:user-agent:mime-version; bh=Iz3y/YzA51LR/pd40lgi+dAaCRlZbczZyMW1x9sAJuk=; b=UaknhsW8WULQ/pwXMW2oTVi1DxAy0kHClEAb+UMZD2eatQ6oUznB1b/hlX3JZ1XiKW 4l/lyqHrnzbK1NTDoGw7FLn8W31Er8MCiD26exQoau1TStI4g1sm8LAKsCDUGlySAIS4 u7/b7enAUbzwGt2K0SMc1beLeC97B/C9WBorD0IIkJit1qhT9GT3uuHTRwaGxwxqnGtj u7ieBKT1Lm0+3+PcPOdFPCpOPmdyIPBap/d/YxU8DGdG7euzR/0b8MaSK2QMHmnVQkdk Hqumz+9PCdybVyjbes9qNqLIUVYIW/BIY+KbY8Vs04ny+ocmddp/S+0O8kYOmtoH6MLG ZK1g== X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51CNbQ8w3F+cvcJg/v/0zgW47y/7SmcaixNamzh/RCii+mp5znKH LvhVEbHeDzqR3hshnzk8uvWxhqup X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0VdadN4Cc73eeFUzbA1qle5bDMy6qDdTod7NOZqgsQkwOchJU7Nf1jOZ3JxcNTuN8BiVev+GdCQ== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:9616:: with SMTP id y22-v6mr37582wmd.72.1535582223728; Wed, 29 Aug 2018 15:37:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (112.68.155.104.bc.googleusercontent.com. [104.155.68.112]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 144-v6sm5720wma.45.2018.08.29.15.37.02 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Wed, 29 Aug 2018 15:37:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Thomas Gummerer Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] rerere: mention caveat about unmatched conflict markers Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2018 09:04:35 -0700 References: <20180824221005.5983-1-t.gummerer@gmail.com> <20180828212744.18714-1-t.gummerer@gmail.com> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Thomas Gummerer writes: > Yeah that makes sense. Maybe something like this? > > (replying to here to keep > the patches in one thread) > > Documentation/technical/rerere.txt | 4 ++++ > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/technical/rerere.txt b/Documentation/technical/rerere.txt > index e65ba9b0c6..8fefe51b00 100644 > --- a/Documentation/technical/rerere.txt > +++ b/Documentation/technical/rerere.txt > @@ -149,7 +149,10 @@ version, and the sorting the conflict hunks, both for the outer and the > inner conflict. This is done recursively, so any number of nested > conflicts can be handled. > > +Note that this only works for conflict markers that "cleanly nest". If > +there are any unmatched conflict markers, rerere will fail to handle > +the conflict and record a conflict resolution. > + > The only difference is in how the conflict ID is calculated. For the > inner conflict, the conflict markers themselves are not stripped out > before calculating the sha1. Looks good to me except for the line count on the @@ line. The preimage ought to have 6 (not 7) lines and adding 4 new lines makes it a 10 line postimage. I wonder who miscounted the hunk---it is immediately followed by the signature cut mark "-- \n" and some tools (including Emacs's patch editing mode) are known to misinterpret it as a preimage line that was removed. What is curious is that your 2/2 counts the preimage lines correctly. In any case, both patches look good. Will apply. Thanks.