Elijah Newren writes:
> At the end of this series, the "merge-recursive: add sanity checks for
> relevant merge_options" commit adds some assertions that would fail if
> someone passed such a value, regardless of whether this patch was
> included or not. (Are we worried about people having such
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 3:14 PM Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> Elijah Newren writes:
>
> > static inline int merge_detect_rename(struct merge_options *opt)
> > {
> > - return opt->merge_detect_rename >= 0 ? opt->merge_detect_rename :
> > - opt->diff_detect_rename >= 0 ? opt->diff_det
Elijah Newren writes:
> static inline int merge_detect_rename(struct merge_options *opt)
> {
> - return opt->merge_detect_rename >= 0 ? opt->merge_detect_rename :
> - opt->diff_detect_rename >= 0 ? opt->diff_detect_rename : 1;
> + return (opt->detect_renames != -1) ? opt->de
We provided users with the ability to state whether they wanted rename
detection, and to put a limit on how much CPU would be spent. Both of
these fields had multiple configuration parameters for setting them,
with one being a fallback and the other being an override. However,
instead of implemen
4 matches
Mail list logo
