Edward Thomson <ethom...@microsoft.com> writes:

> I would propose that we store the data about the file in conflict as it
> occurred through the renames.  For example, in a rename 1->2 conflict where
> A was renamed to both B and C, you would have a single conflict entry
> containing the data for A, B and C.  This would allow us to provide more
> detailed information to the user - and allow them to (say) choose a single
> name to proceed with.
> Is this something that has value to core git as well?  Alternately, is
> there something particularly stupid about this proposal?

I do not offhand see anything particularly stupid; a new optional
index extension section CACHE_EXT_RENAME_CONFLICT might be a good

Is "one side moves A to B while the other side moves it to C" the
only case, or is it just an example?  Off the top of my head, "one
side moves A to x while the other side moves B to x/y" would also be
something we would want to know.  I am sure there are other cases
that need to be considered.

I do not think we can discuss the design at the concrete level until
the proposal spells out to cover all interesting cases in order for
implementations to agree on the common semantics.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to