Phil Hord writes:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Phil Hord writes:
>>
>>> So, the next roll will remove the tests for MERGE_RR and will be more
>>> explicit about the potential for mergetool confusion and/or the fact
>>> that it is not explicitly tested here.
>>>
>>
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Phil Hord writes:
>
>> So, the next roll will remove the tests for MERGE_RR and will be more
>> explicit about the potential for mergetool confusion and/or the fact
>> that it is not explicitly tested here.
>>
>> I'll wait a little longer f
Phil Hord writes:
> So, the next roll will remove the tests for MERGE_RR and will be more
> explicit about the potential for mergetool confusion and/or the fact
> that it is not explicitly tested here.
>
> I'll wait a little longer for any further comments.
Mild ping to a seemingly stalled topic
Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Phil Hord writes:
>
> > Add a failing test to confirm a conflicted stash apply invokes
> > rerere to record the conflicts and resolve the the files it can.
>
> OK.
>
> > In this failing state, mergetool may be confused by a left-over
> > state from previous rerere activity
Phil Hord writes:
> Add a failing test to confirm a conflicted stash apply invokes
> rerere to record the conflicts and resolve the the files it can.
OK.
> In this failing state, mergetool may be confused by a left-over
> state from previous rerere activity.
It is unclear to me what relevance
Add a failing test to confirm a conflicted stash apply
invokes rerere to record the conflicts and resolve the
the files it can. In this failing state, mergetool may
be confused by a left-over state from previous rerere
activity.
Also, the next test expected us to finish up with a reset,
which is
6 matches
Mail list logo
