make_room_for_directories_of_df_conflicts() is about making sure necessary
working directory changes can succeed. When o->call_depth > 0 (i.e. the
recursive case), we do not want to make any working directory changes so
this function should be skipped.
Note that make_room_for_directories_of_df_conflicts() is broken as has
been pointed out by Junio; it should NOT be unlinking files. What it
should do is keep track of files that could be unlinked if a directory
later needs to be written in their place. However, that work also is only
relevant in the non-recursive case, so this change is helpful either way.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
We are only calling update_stages_options() one way really, so we can
consolidate the slightly different variants into one and remove some
parameters whose values are always the same.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Hopefully no one ever hits this error except when making large changes to
merge-recursive.c and debugging...
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This is a testcase that was broken by b2c8c0a (merge-recursive: When we
detect we can skip an update, actually skip it 2011-02-28) and fixed by
6db4105 (Revert "Merge branch 'en/merge-recursive'" 2011-05-19). Include
this testcase to ensure we don't regress it again.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This testcase was part of en/merge-recursive that was reverted in 6db4105
(Revert "Merge branch 'en/merge-recursive'" 2011-05-19). While the other
changes in that series caused unfortunate breakage, this testcase is still
useful; reinstate it.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Since this test later does a git add -A, we should clean out unnecessary
untracked files as part of our cleanup.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This is another challenging testcase trying to exercise the virtual merge
base creation in the rename/rename(1to2) code. A testcase is added that
we should be able to merge cleanly, but which requires a virtual merge
base to be created that is aware of rename/rename(1to2)/add-source
conflicts and can handle those.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This test is mostly just designed for testing optimality of the virtual
merge base in the event of a rename/rename(1to2) conflict. The current
choice for resolving this in git seems somewhat confusing and suboptimal.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Add testcases that cover three failures with current git merge, all
involving renaming one file on both sides of history:
Case 1:
If a single file is renamed to two different filenames on different sides
of history, there should be a conflict. Adding a new file on one of those
sides of history whose name happens to match the rename source should not
cause the merge to suddenly succeed.
Case 2:
If a single file is renamed on both sides of history but renamed
identically, there should not be a conflict. This works fine. However,
if one of those sides also added a new file that happened to match the
rename source, then that file should be left alone. Currently, the
rename/rename conflict handling causes that new file to become untracked.
Case 3:
If a single file is renamed to two different filenames on different sides
of history, there should be a conflict. This works currently. However,
if those renames also involve rename/add conflicts (i.e. there are new
files on one side of history that match the destination of the rename of
the other side of history), then the resulting conflict should be recorded
in the index, showing that there were multiple files with a given filename.
Currently, git silently discards one of file versions.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
rename/rename conflicts, both with one file being renamed to two different
files and with two files being renamed to the same file, should leave the
index and the working copy in a sane state with appropriate conflict
recording, auxiliary files, etc. Git seems to handle one of the two cases
alright, but has some problems with the two files being renamed to one
case. Add tests for both cases.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Add testcases that cover a variety of merge issues with files being
renamed and modified on different sides of history, when there are
directories possibly conflicting with the rename location.
Case 1:
On one side of history, a file is modified and a new directory is added.
On the other side of history, the file is modified in a non-conflicting
way but is renamed to the location of the new directory.
Case 2:
[Same as case 1, but there is also a content conflict. In detail:]
On one side of history, a file is modified and a new directory is added.
On the other side of history, the file is modified in a conflicting way
and it is renamed to the location of the new directory.
Case 3:
[Similar to case 1, but the "conflicting" directory is the directory
where the file original resided. In detail:]
On one side of history, a file is modified. On the other side of history,
the file is modified in a non-conflicting way, but the directory it was
under is removed and the file is renamed to the location of the directory
it used to reside in (i.e. 'sub/file' gets renamed to 'sub'). This is
flagged as a directory/rename conflict, but should be able to be resolved
since the directory can be cleanly removed by the merge.
One branch renames a file and makes a file where the directory the renamed
file used to be in, and the other branch updates the file in
place. Merging them should resolve it cleanly as long as the content level
change on the branches do not overlap and rename is detected, or should
leave conflict without losing information.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
There are cases where history should merge cleanly, and which current git
does merge cleanly despite not detecting a rename; however the merge
currently nukes files that should not be removed.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
An undetected rename can cause a silent success where a conflict should
have been detected, or can cause an erroneous conflict state where the
merge should have been resolvable. Add testcases for both.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
If there is a cleanly resolvable rename/modify conflict AND there is a new
file introduced on the renamed side of the merge whose name happens to
match that of the source of the rename (but is otherwise unrelated to the
rename), then git fails to cleanly resolve the merge despite the fact that
the new file should not cause any problems.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Current git will nuke an untracked file during a rename/delete conflict if
(a) there is an untracked file whose name matches the source of a rename
and (b) the merge is done in a certain direction. Add a simple testcase
demonstrating this bug.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
* jk/maint-config-alias-fix:
handle_options(): do not miscount how many arguments were used
config: always parse GIT_CONFIG_PARAMETERS during git_config
git_config: don't peek at global config_parameters
config: make environment parsing routines static
* jk/maint-docs:
docs: fix some antique example output
docs: make sure literal "->" isn't converted to arrow
docs: update status --porcelain format
docs: minor grammar fixes to git-status
Since 9d8a5a5 (diffcore-rename: refactor "too many candidates" logic,
2011-01-06), diffcore_rename() initializes num_src but does not use it
anymore. "-Wunused-but-set-variable" in gcc-4.6 complains about this.
Signed-off-by: Jim Meyering <meyering@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
* vh/config-interactive-singlekey-doc:
git-reset.txt: better docs for '--patch'
git-checkout.txt: better docs for '--patch'
git-stash.txt: better docs for '--patch'
git-add.txt: document 'interactive.singlekey'
config.txt: 'interactive.singlekey; is used by...
* ab/i18n-fixup: (24 commits)
i18n: use test_i18n{cmp,grep} in t7600, t7607, t7611 and t7811
i18n: use test_i18n{grep,cmp} in t7508
i18n: use test_i18ngrep in t7506
i18n: use test_i18ngrep and test_i18ncmp in t7502
i18n: use test_i18ngrep in t7501
i18n: use test_i18ncmp in t7500
i18n: use test_i18ngrep in t7201
i18n: use test_i18ncmp and test_i18ngrep in t7102 and t7110
i18n: use test_i18ncmp and test_i18ngrep in t5541, t6040, t6120, t7004, t7012 and t7060
i18n: use test_i18ncmp and test_i18ngrep in t3700, t4001 and t4014
i18n: use test_i18ncmp and test_i18ngrep in t3203, t3501 and t3507
i18n: use test_i18ngrep in t2020, t2204, t3030, and t3200
i18n: use test_i18ngrep in lib-httpd and t2019
i18n: do not overuse C_LOCALE_OUTPUT (grep)
i18n: use test_i18ncmp in t1200 and t2200
i18n: .git file is not a human readable message (t5601)
i18n: do not overuse C_LOCALE_OUTPUT
i18n: mark init-db messages for translation
i18n: mark checkout plural warning for translation
i18n: mark checkout --detach messages for translation
...
* jc/rename-degrade-cc-to-c:
diffcore-rename: fall back to -C when -C -C busts the rename limit
diffcore-rename: record filepair for rename src
diffcore-rename: refactor "too many candidates" logic
builtin/diff.c: remove duplicated call to diff_result_code()
* rr/doc-content-type:
Documentation: Allow custom diff tools to be specified in 'diff.tool'
Documentation: Add diff.<driver>.* to config
Documentation: Move diff.<driver>.* from config.txt to diff-config.txt
Documentation: Add filter.<driver>.* to config
In v1.7.3.3~2 (Documentation: do not misinterpret pull refspec as bold
text, 2010-12-03) many uses of asterisks in expressions like
"refs/heads/*:refs/svn/origin/branches/*" were escaped as {asterisk}
to avoid being treated as delimiters for bold text, but these two were
missed.
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
* jm/maint-misc-fix:
read_gitfile_gently: use ssize_t to hold read result
remove tests of always-false condition
rerere.c: diagnose a corrupt MERGE_RR when hitting EOF between TAB and '\0'
We do allow vanilla Makefile users to say make sysconfdir=/else/where
and config.mak can also be tweaked manually for the same effect. Give
the same configurablity to ./configure users as well.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
These diff-index and diff-tree sample outputs date back to
the first month of git's existence. The output format has
changed slightly since then, so let's have it match the
current output.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Recent versions of asciidoc will treat "->" as a
single-glyph arrow symbol, unless it is inside a literal
code block. This is a problem if we are discussing literal
output and want to show the ASCII characters.
Our usage falls into three categories:
1. Inside a code block. These can be left as-is.
2. Discussing literal output or code, but inside a
paragraph. This patch escapes these as "\->".
3. Using the arrow as a symbolic element, such as "use the
Edit->Account Settings menu". In this case, the
arrow symbol is preferable, so we leave it as-is.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The --porcelain format was originally identical to the
--short format, but designed to be stable as the short
format changed. Since this was written, the short format
picked up a few incompatible niceties, but this description
was never changed.
Let's mention the differences. While we're at it, let's add
some sub-section headings to make the "output" section a
little easier to navigate.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Some shells interpret '(( ))' according to the rules for arithmetic
expansion. This may not follow POSIX, but is prevalent in commonly used
shells. Bash does not have a problem with this particular instance of
'((', likely because it is not followed by a '))', but the public domain
ksh does, and so does ksh on IRIX 6.5.
So, add a space between the parenthesis to avoid confusing these shells.
Signed-off-by: Brandon Casey <casey@nrlssc.navy.mil>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Otherwise, a negative error return becomes a very large read
value. We catch this in practice because we compare the
expected and actual numbers of bytes (and you are not likely
to be reading (size_t)-1 bytes), but this makes the
correctness a little more obvious.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
* fsck.c (fsck_error_function): Don't test obj->sha1 == 0.
It can never be true, since that sha1 member is an array.
* transport.c (set_upstreams): Likewise for ref->new_sha1.
Signed-off-by: Jim Meyering <meyering@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Elijah Newren