On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
Phil Hord phil.h...@gmail.com 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.
Phil Hord phil.h...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
Phil Hord phil.h...@gmail.com 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
Phil Hord phil.h...@gmail.com 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
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
Phil Hord ho...@cisco.com 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
Phil Hord ho...@cisco.com 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
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
