kernel/git - git - PowerEL Git System

Tree: 6991341565

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Alex Riesen	8a35981927	Add a test for merging changed and rename-changed branches Also leave a warning for future merge-recursive explorers. Signed-off-by: Alex Riesen <raa.lkml@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>	18 years ago
Junio C Hamano	5b329a5f5e	t6022: ignoring untracked files by merge-recursive when they do not matter Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>	18 years ago
Junio C Hamano	36889a5078	tests: merge-recursive is usable without Python Many tests still protected themselves with $no_python; there is no need to do so anymore. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>	18 years ago
Junio C Hamano	fcc387db9b	read-tree -m -u: do not overwrite or remove untracked working tree files. When a merge results in a creation of a path that did not exist in HEAD, and if you already have that path on the working tree, because the index has not been told about the working tree file, read-tree happily removes it. The issue was brought up by Santi Béjar on the list. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>	19 years ago
Johannes Schindelin	abb7c7b31c	Optionally work without python In some setups (notably server setups) you do not need that dependency. Gracefully handle the absence of python when NO_PYTHON is defined. Signed-off-by: Johannes E. Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>	19 years ago
Junio C Hamano	724b511d4f	merge-recursive: conflicting rename case. This changes the way the case two branches rename the same path to different paths is handled. Earlier, the code removed the original path and added both destinations to the index at stage0. This commit changes it to leave the original path at stage1, and two destination paths at stage2 and stage3, respectively. [jc: I am not really sure if this makes much difference in the real life merge situations. What should happen when our branch renames A to B and M to N, while their branch renames A to M? That is, M remains in our tree as is.] Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>	19 years ago
Junio C Hamano	b825e6ff5d	t/t6022: a new test for renaming merge. This adds a couple of tests to cover the following renaming merge cases: - one side renames and the other side does not, with and without content conflicts. - both side rename to the same path, with and without content conflicts. The test setup also prepares a case in which both side rename to different destination, but currently the code collapses these destination paths and removes the original path, which may be wrong. The outcome of this case is not checked by the tests in this round. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>	19 years ago