Elijah Newren <[email protected]> writes:
> The correct order usually comes naturally and for free, but with renames
> we often have data in the form {rename_branch, other_branch}, and
> working relative to the rename first (e.g. for rename/add) is more
> convenient elsewhere in the code. Address the slight impedance
> mismatch by having some functions re-call themselves with flipped
> arguments when the branch order is reversed.
I've never noticed or felt disturbed myself, but thanks for this
level of attention to the detail.
> @@ -228,7 +228,26 @@ static inline void setup_rename_conflict_info(enum
> rename_type rename_type,
> struct stage_data *src_entry1,
> struct stage_data *src_entry2)
> {
> - struct rename_conflict_info *ci = xcalloc(1, sizeof(struct
> rename_conflict_info));
> + struct rename_conflict_info *ci;
> +
> + /*
> + * When we have two renames involved, it's easiest to get the
> + * correct things into stage 2 and 3, and to make sure that the
> + * content merge puts HEAD before the other branch if we just
> + * ensure that branch1 == o->branch1. So, simply flip arguments
> + * around if we don't have that.
> + */
> + if (dst_entry2 && branch1 != o->branch1) {
> + setup_rename_conflict_info(rename_type,
> + pair2, pair1,
> + branch2, branch1,
> + dst_entry2, dst_entry1,
> + o,
> + src_entry2, src_entry1);
> + return;
> + }
;-)
