At GitHub, we had a repository that was triggering
git: merge-ort.c:3032: process_renames: Assertion `newinfo && !newinfo->merged.clean` failed.
during git replay.
This sounds similar to the somewhat recent f6ecb603ff (merge-ort: fix
directory rename on top of source of other rename/delete, 2025-08-06),
but the cause is different. Unlike that case, there are no
rename-to-self situations arising in this case, and new to this case it
can only be triggered during a replay operation on the 2nd or later
commit being replayed, never on the first merge in the sequence.
To trigger, the repository needs:
* an upstream which:
* renames a file to a different directory, e.g.
old/file -> new/file
* leaves other files remaining in the original directory (so that
e.g. "old/" still exists upstream even though file has been
removed from it and placed elsewhere)
* a topic branch being rebased where:
* a commit in the sequence:
* modifies old/file
* a subsequent commit in the sequence being replayed:
* does NOT touch *anything* under new/
* does NOT touch old/file
* DOES modify other paths under old/
* does NOT have any relevant renames that we need to detect
_anywhere_ elsewhere in the tree (meaning this interacts
interestingly with both directory renames and cached renames)
In such a case, the assertion will trigger. The fix turns out to be
surprisingly simple. I have a very vague recollection that I actually
considered whether to add such an if-check years ago when I added the
very similar one for oldinfo in 1b6b902d95 (merge-ort:
process_renames() now needs more defensiveness, 2021-01-19), but I think
I couldn't figure out a possible way to trigger it and was worried at
the time that if I didn't know how to trigger it then I wasn't so sure
that simply skipping it was correct. Waiting did give me a chance to
put more thorough tests and checks into place for the rename-to-self
cases a few months back, which I might not have found as easily
otherwise. Anyway, put the check in place now and add a test that
demonstrates the fix.
Note that this bug, as demonstrated by the conditions listed above,
runs at the intersection of relevant renames, trivial directory
resolutions, and cached renames. All three of those optimizations are
ones that unfortunately make the code (and testcases!) a bit more
complex, and threading all three makes it a bit more so. However, the
testcase isn't crazy enough that I'd expect no one to ever hit it in
practice, and was confused why we didn't see it before. After some
digging, I discovered that merge.directoryRenames=false is a workaround
to this bug, and GitHub used that setting until recently (it was a
"temporary" match-what-libgit2-does piece of code that lasted years
longer than intended). Since the conditions I gave above for triggering
this bug rule out the possibility of there being directory renames, one
might assume that it shouldn't matter whether you try to detect such
renames if there aren't any. However, due to commit a16e8efe5c
(merge-ort: fix merge.directoryRenames=false, 2025-03-13), the heavy
hammer used there means that merge.directoryRenames=false ALSO turns off
rename caching, which is critical to triggering the bug. This becomes
a bit more than an aside since...
Re-reading that old commit, a16e8efe5c (merge-ort: fix
merge.directoryRenames=false, 2025-03-13), it appears that the solution
to this latest bug might have been at least a partial alternative
solution to that old commit. And it may have been an improved
alternative (or at least help implement one), since it may be able to
avoid the heavy-handed disabling of rename cache. That might be an
interesting future thing to investigate, but is not critical for the
current fix. However, since I spent time digging it all up, at least
leave a small comment tweak breadcrumb to help some future reader
(myself or others) who wants to dig further to connect the dots a little
quicker.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Git - fast, scalable, distributed revision control system
Git is a fast, scalable, distributed revision control system with an
unusually rich command set that provides both high-level operations
and full access to internals.
Git is an Open Source project covered by the GNU General Public
License version 2 (some parts of it are under different licenses,
compatible with the GPLv2). It was originally written by Linus
Torvalds with help of a group of hackers around the net.
Please read the file INSTALL for installation instructions.
Many Git online resources are accessible from https://git-scm.com/
including full documentation and Git related tools.
See Documentation/gittutorial.adoc to get started, then see
Documentation/giteveryday.adoc for a useful minimum set of commands, and
Documentation/git-<commandname>.adoc for documentation of each command.
If git has been correctly installed, then the tutorial can also be
read with man gittutorial or git help tutorial, and the
documentation of each command with man git-<commandname> or git help <commandname>.
Those wishing to help with error message, usage and informational message
string translations (localization l10) should see po/README.md
(a po file is a Portable Object file that holds the translations).
Issues which are security relevant should be disclosed privately to
the Git Security mailing list git-security@googlegroups.com.
The maintainer frequently sends the "What's cooking" reports that
list the current status of various development topics to the mailing
list. The discussion following them give a good reference for
project status, development direction and remaining tasks.
The name "git" was given by Linus Torvalds when he wrote the very
first version. He described the tool as "the stupid content tracker"
and the name as (depending on your mood):
random three-letter combination that is pronounceable, and not
actually used by any common UNIX command. The fact that it is a
mispronunciation of "get" may or may not be relevant.
stupid. contemptible and despicable. simple. Take your pick from the
dictionary of slang.
"global information tracker": you're in a good mood, and it actually
works for you. Angels sing, and a light suddenly fills the room.
"goddamn idiotic truckload of sh*t": when it breaks
a562d90a35
