Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] git add --resolved

Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> writes:

> Jeff King <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> That doesn't seem too bad to me. I was mostly worried about (1), but
>> after digging into it, I think I've convinced myself that it's a
>> non-issue.
>
> Yeah, our merges that began with "read-tree -m -u" have never merged
> into a path with local modification in it, so I have blindly
> assuming that (1) is a given.  I think "ort" did not change it, but
> quite honestly I do not know where the more recent invention that
> renames paths that existed only on one side to follow adjacent paths
> that were renamed from the same directory guarantees property (1),
> so in these new code paths my assumption truly is a blind faith X-<.

So I got curious, and found out that t6423 has a test labelled as
"Testcase 11b" that covers this exact case.  So it is a bit better
than blind faith now ;-).