Elijah Newren <new...@gmail.com> writes: > On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 1:22 PM, Elijah Newren <new...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 10:53 AM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: >>> Elijah Newren <new...@gmail.com> writes: >>> >>>> When a merge succeeds, we expect the resulting contents to depend only >>>> upon the trees and blobs of the branches involved and of their merge >>>> base(s). Unfortunately, there are currently about half a dozen cases >>>> where the contents of a "successful" merge depend on the relative >>>> commit timestamps of the merge bases. Document these with testcases. >>>> >>>> (This series came out of looking at modifying how file collision >>>> conflict types are handled, as discussed at . I discovered these >>>> issues while working on that topic.) >>> >>> I have a topic branch for this series but not merged to 'pu' as >>> test-lint gives these: >>> > ... >> >> ... here's a fixup to the topic; as you pointed out, the exact contents >> of the script being written were actually irrelevant; it was just an >> input to a merge. >> >> -- 8< -- >> Subject: [PATCH] fixup! t6036: add a failed conflict detection case: regular >> files, different modes >> > > Does a 'fixup!' commit require a Signed-off-by? Just realized that > this one didn't have it, though I don't know if it's necessary. If it > is: > > Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <new...@gmail.com>
Thanks. I queued it separately before running out of time Monday, but will actually squash it in to the main patch.