> Jonathan Tan writes:
>
> >> OK. We notice that we need to newly create foo/bar but we
> >> incorrectly find that there is "foo/bar" already because of the
> >> careless use of bare lstat(2) makes "bar" visible as if it were also
> >> "foo/bar". I wonder if the current code would be confused t
Jonathan Tan writes:
>> OK. We notice that we need to newly create foo/bar but we
>> incorrectly find that there is "foo/bar" already because of the
>> careless use of bare lstat(2) makes "bar" visible as if it were also
>> "foo/bar". I wonder if the current code would be confused the same
>> w
> OK. We notice that we need to newly create foo/bar but we
> incorrectly find that there is "foo/bar" already because of the
> careless use of bare lstat(2) makes "bar" visible as if it were also
> "foo/bar". I wonder if the current code would be confused the same
> way if the side branch added
Jonathan Tan writes:
> When the working tree has:
> - bar (directory)
> - bar/file (file)
> - foo (symlink to .)
>
> (note that lstat() for "foo/bar" would tell us that it is a directory)
>
> and the user merges a commit that deletes the foo symlink and instead
> contains:
> - bar (directory,
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 1:27 PM Jonathan Tan wrote:
>
> When the working tree has:
> - bar (directory)
> - bar/file (file)
> - foo (symlink to .)
>
> (note that lstat() for "foo/bar" would tell us that it is a directory)
>
> and the user merges a commit that deletes the foo symlink and instead
When the working tree has:
- bar (directory)
- bar/file (file)
- foo (symlink to .)
(note that lstat() for "foo/bar" would tell us that it is a directory)
and the user merges a commit that deletes the foo symlink and instead
contains:
- bar (directory, as above)
- bar/file (file, as above)
6 matches
Mail list logo
