From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE8531F731 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 17:49:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727540AbfHFRtf (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Aug 2019 13:49:35 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:53468 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726783AbfHFRtf (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Aug 2019 13:49:35 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBDBC1672D0; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 13:49:32 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=ddskg9dk2cilFMAPGnd9vLbuMO0=; b=m+DT4q I0CBcCXBTTwYPs1mKs7RGJvv4vnmeYYqhczT69bzmmzOMMQBorYbq8gQrRgQXc8O 9ED8za/JK4ZRfg4b6Zx6jUcGyyGdkr6SGGbolSi9lCxaMjKaR/w92L9YASBQ+3Jo J+sluHUfuqRcNOd3dh6EfWtaYV4UHGxJYMG24= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=yTOaCyjTNPKJ45ZOOtoBnsoCWvtrlZLU OIEkMrNmWrVHYyfmI1NH+qQ5jXhClglQ+R4exbjh4GJUG3O7L/YcX6nSHfGqlWPC XzkaHwsI9p7/vHN5ND6GaWhVVv08fEvPYTwhGUMOGm0hbMmrTcx0AMOv9VCRxrRp LO3gxc8ByyQ= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0BEF1672CF; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 13:49:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.76.80.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 10D941672CE; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 13:49:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Elijah Newren Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Emily Shaffer Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] merge-recursive: avoid directory rename detection in recursive case References: <20190726220928.GG113966@google.com> <20190805223350.27504-1-newren@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2019 10:49:30 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Tue, 06 Aug 2019 09:57:46 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 8BB15AFC-B872-11E9-A24F-46F8B7964D18-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Junio C Hamano writes: > I do agree that it is sensible to avoid doing any funky thing during > the virtual base merges, whose result is much less observable (hence > harder to form the right mental model in end user's head) than the > outermost merge. Do we want to allow this for inner merges when the > setting is 2? Wouldn't that hit the same BUG()? Ah, actually no. 2 would make a choice of committing to one possible merge result and does not leave options to be resolved as conflicted, so we should be able to write out its decision as a tree. If we cannot form a tree object when operating with 2, we do have a bug and we do want to know about it.