When there are unmerged entries present, make sure to check for D/F
conflicts first and remove any files present in HEAD that would be in the
way of creating files below the correspondingly named directory. Such
files will be processed again at the end of the merge in
process_df_entry(); at that time we will be able to tell if we need to
and can reinstate the file, whether we need to place its contents in a
different file due to the directory still being present, etc.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
If all the paths below some directory involved in a D/F conflict were not
removed during the rest of the merge, then the contents of the file whose
path conflicted needs to be recorded in file with an alternative filename.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
If all the paths below some directory involved in a D/F conflict were not
removed during the rest of the merge, then the contents of the file whose
path conflicted needs to be recorded in file with an alternative filename.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This function is called from process_df_entry(), near the end of the merge.
Rather than just checking whether one of the sides of the merge had a
directory at the same path as one of our files, check whether that
directory is still present by this point of our merge.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
If all the paths below some directory involved in a D/F conflict were not
removed during the rest of the merge, then the contents of the file whose
path conflicted needs to be recorded in file with an alternative filename.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
When handling merges with modify/delete conflicts, if the modified path is
involved in a D/F conflict, handle the issue in process_df_entry() rather
than process_entry().
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Move the handling of content merging for renames from process_renames() to
process_df_entry().
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Move the handling of rename/delete conflicts from process_renames() to
process_df_entry().
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Move the handling of rename/rename conflicts where one file is renamed on
both sides to the same file, from process_renames() to process_entry().
Here we avoid the three way merge logic by just using
update_stages_and_entry() to move the higher stage entries in the index
from the rename source to the rename destination, and then allow
process_entry() to do its magic.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Move the handling of rename/rename conflicts where one file is renamed to
two different files, from process_renames() to process_df_entry().
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
When a commit moves A to B while another commit created B (or moved C to
B), and these two different commits serve as different merge-bases for a
later merge, c94736a (merge-recursive: don't segfault while handling
rename clashes 2009-07-30) added some special code to avoid segfaults.
Since that commit, the two versions of B are merged in place (which could
be potentially conflicting) and the intermediate result is used as the
virtual ancestor.
However, right before this special merge, try_merge was turned on, meaning
that process_renames() would try an alternative merge that ignores the
'add' part of the conflict, and, if the merge is clean, store that as the
new virtual ancestor. This could cause incorrect merging of criss-cross
merges; it would typically result in just recording a slightly confusing
merge base, but in some cases it could cause silent acceptance of one side
of a merge as the final resolution when a conflict should have been
flagged.
When we do a special merge for such a rename/add conflict between
merge-bases, turn try_merge off to avoid an inappropriate second merge.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Enable calling merge_content() and providing more information about renames
and D/F conflicts (which we will want to do from process_df_entry()).
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To facilitate having this function called later using information stored
in a rename_df_conflict_info struct, accept a diff_filepair instead of a
rename.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Modify process_df_entry() (mostly just indentation level changes) to
get it ready for handling more D/F conflict type cases.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
If an entry has an associated rename_df_conflict_info, skip it and allow
it to be processed by process_df_entry().
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
process_renames() and process_entry() have nearly identical code for
doing three-way file merging to resolve content changes. Since we are
already deferring some of the current rename handling in order to better
handle D/F conflicts, it seems to make sense to defer content merging as
well and remove the (nearly) duplicated code sections for handling this
merging.
To facilitate this process, add a new update_stages_and_entry() function
which will map the higher stage index entries from two files involved in a
rename into the resulting rename destination's index entries, and update
the associated stage_data structure.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Since we need to resolve paths (including renames) in-core first and defer
checking of D/F conflicts (namely waiting to see if directories are still
in the way after all paths are resolved) before updating files involved in
D/F conflicts, we will need to first process_renames, then record some
information about the rename needed at D/F resolution time, and then make
use of that information when resolving D/F conflicts at the end.
This commit adds some relevant data structures for storing the necessary
information.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This move is in preparation for merge_content growing and being called from
multiple places in order to handle D/F conflicts.
I also snuck in a small change to the output in the case that the merged
content for the file matches the current file contents, to make it better
match (and thus more able to take over) how other merge_file() calls in
process_renames() are handled.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This move is in preparation for the function being called from multiple
places in order to handle D/F conflicts.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This move is in preparation for the function growing and being called from
multiple places in order to handle D/F conflicts.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Since we want to resolve merges in-core and then detect at the end whether
D/F conflicts remain in the way, we should just apply renames in-core and
let logic elsewhere check for D/F conflicts.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The names conflict_rename_rename and conflict_rename_rename_2 did not make
it clear what they were handling. Since the first of these handles one
file being renamed in both branches to different files, while the latter
handles two different files being renamed to the same thing, add a little
'1to2' and '2to1' suffix on these and an explanatory comment to make their
intent clearer.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
process_renames() had a variable named "stage" and derived variables
src_other and dst_other whose purpose was not immediately obvious; also,
I want to extend the scope of this variable and use it later, so it should
have a more descriptive name. Do so, and add a brief comment explaining
how it is used and what it relates to.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
If merging two lines of development involves a rename/add conflict, and two
different people make such a merge but resolve it differently, and then
someone tries to merge the resulting two merges, then they should clearly
get a conflict due to the different resolutions from the previous
developers. However, in some such cases the conflict would not be detected
and git would silently accept one of the two versions being merged as the
final merge resolution.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
c94736a (merge-recursive: don't segfault while handling rename clashes
2009-07-30) added t6036 with a testcase that involved dual renames and a
criss-cross merge. Add a test that is nearly identical, but which also
involves content modification -- a case git currently does not merge
correctly.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
c94736a (merge-recursive: don't segfault while handling rename clashes
2009-07-30) added this testcase with an interesting corner case test,
which previously had cased git to segfault. This test ensures that the
segfault does not return and that the merge correctly fails; just add
some checks that verify the state of the index and worktree after the merge
are correct.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Add tests where one file is renamed to two different paths in different
sides of history, and where each of the new files matches the name of a
directory from the opposite side of history. Include tests for both the
case where the merge results in those directories not being cleanly
removed, and where those directories are cleanly removed during the merge.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
An interesting testcase is having two files each in their own subdirectory
getting renamed to the toplevel at the directory pathname of the other.
Questions arise as to whether the order of operations matters and whether
the directories can correctly get out of the way and make room for the
new files.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Having the source of a rename be involved in a directory/file conflict does
not currently pose any difficulties to the current merge-recursive
algorithm (in contrast to destinations of renames and D/F conflicts).
However, combining the two seemed like good testcases to include for
completeness.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
When merging two branches with some path involved in a D/F conflict, the
choice of which branch to merge into the other matters for (at least) two
reasons: (1) whether the working copy has a directory full of files that
is in the way of a file, or a file exists that is in the way of a
directory of files, (2) when the directory full of files does not disappear
due to the merge, what files at the same paths should be renamed to
(e.g. filename~HEAD vs. filename~otherbranch).
Add some tests that reverse the merge order of two other tests, and which
verify the contents are as expected (namely, that the results are identical
other than modified-for-uniqueness filenames involving branch names).
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Add testing of the various ways that a renamed file to a path involved in
a directory/file conflict may be involved in. This includes whether or not
there are conflicts of the contents of the renamed file (if the file was
modified on both sides of history), and whether the directory from the
other side of the merge will disappear as a result of the merge or not.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Previous D/F fixes I submitted (5a2580d and ae74548) had caused merge to
become excessively spammy, which was fixed in 96ecac6 (merge-recursive:
Avoid excessive output for and reprocessing of renames 2010-08-20). Add a
new test to avoid repeating that mistake with my several upcoming changes.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
In 3734893 (merge-recursive: Fix D/F conflicts 2010-07-09),
process_df_entry() was added to process_renames() and process_entry() but
in a somewhat restrictive manner. Modify the code slightly to make it
clearer how we could chain more such functions if necessary, and alter
process_df_entry() to handle such chaining.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
d5af510 (RE: [PATCH] Avoid rename/add conflict when contents are identical
2010-09-01) avoided erroring out in a rename/add conflict when the contents
were identical. A simpler fix could have handled that particular testcase,
but it would not correctly handle the case where a symlink is involved.
Add another testcase using symlinks, to avoid breaking that case.
Signed-off-by: Ken Schalk <ken.schalk@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Some versions of cut do not cope well with lines that do not end in
an LF. In this case, we can completely avoid cut by using the
${var%% *} parameter expansion (suggested by Brandon Casey).
I found this problem when t3404's "avoid unnecessary reset" failed
due to the "rebase -i" not avoiding updating the tested timestamp.
On a Mac OS X 10.4.11 system:
% printf '%s' 'foo bar' | /usr/bin/cut -d ' ' -f 1
cut: stdin: Illegal byte sequence
Signed-off-by: Chris Johnsen <chris_johnsen@pobox.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The ancient touch on Solaris 7 thinks that a decimal number supplied as
the first argument specifies a date_time to give to the files specified by
the remaining arguments. In this case, it fails to parse '1' as a proper
date_time and exits with a failure status. Workaround this flaw by
rearranging the arguments supplied to touch so that a non-digit appears
first and touch will not be confused.
Signed-off-by: Brandon Casey <casey@nrlssc.navy.mil>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Similar to descriptions of other options, state what -x does in imperative
mood. Start sentences for -X and --exclude-per-directory options in
capital letters.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Since b5227d8, -x/--exclude does not apply to cached files.
This is easy to miss unless you read the discussion in the
EXCLUDE PATTERNS section. Clarify that the option applies
to untracked files and direct the reader to EXCLUDE PATTERNS.
Signed-off-by: Jay Soffian <jaysoffian@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
* jl/fix-test:
t1020: Get rid of 'cd "$HERE"' at the start of each test
t2016 (checkout -p): add missing &&
t1302 (core.repositoryversion): style tweaks
t2105 (gitfile): add missing &&
t1450 (fsck): remove dangling objects
tests: subshell indentation stylefix
Several tests: cd inside subshell instead of around
