Re: [PATCH v9 29.75/30] merge-recursive: Fix was_tracked() to quit lying with some renamed paths

On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 5:37 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Elijah Newren writes: > >> @@ -362,13 +363,17 @@ static int git_merge_trees(struct merge_options *o, >> init_tree_desc_from_tree(t+2, merge); >> >> rc = unpack_trees(3, t, >unpack_opts); >>

Re: [PATCH v9 29.75/30] merge-recursive: Fix was_tracked() to quit lying with some renamed paths

Elijah Newren writes: > @@ -362,13 +363,17 @@ static int git_merge_trees(struct merge_options *o, > init_tree_desc_from_tree(t+2, merge); > > rc = unpack_trees(3, t, >unpack_opts); > + cache_tree_free(_cache_tree); > + > + o->orig_index = the_index; > +

[PATCH v9 29.75/30] merge-recursive: Fix was_tracked() to quit lying with some renamed paths

In commit aacb82de3ff8 ("merge-recursive: Split was_tracked() out of would_lose_untracked()", 2011-08-11), was_tracked() was split out of would_lose_untracked() with the intent to provide a function that could answer whether a path was tracked in the index before the merge. Sadly, it instead