When merge-ort was written, I did not at first allow rename detection to
be disabled, because I suspected that most folks disabling rename
detection were doing so solely for performance reasons. Since I put a
lot of working into providing dramatic speedups for rename detection
performance as used by the merge machinery, I wanted to know if there
were still real world repositories where rename detection was
problematic from a performance perspective. We have had years now to
collect such information, and while we never received one, waiting
longer with the option disabled seems unlikely to help surface such
issues at this point. Also, there has been at least one request to
allow rename detection to be disabled for behavioral rather than
performance reasons (see the thread including
https://lore.kernel.org/git/CABPp-BG-Nx6SCxxkGXn_Fwd2wseifMFND8eddvWxiZVZk0zRaA@mail.gmail.com/
), so let's start heeding the config and command line settings.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Submodule merges are, in general, similar to other merges based on oid
three-way-merge. When a conflict happens, however, Git has two special
cases (introduced in 68d03e4a6e) on handling the conflict before
yielding it to the user. From the merge-ort and merge-recursive sources:
- "Case #1: a is contained in b or vice versa": both strategies try to
perform a fast-forward in the submodules if the commit referred by the
conflicted submodule is descendant of another;
- "Case #2: There are one or more merges that contain a and b in the
submodule. If there is only one, then present it as a suggestion to the
user, but leave it marked unmerged so the user needs to confirm the
resolution."
Add a small paragraph on merge-strategies.adoc describing this behavior.
Helped-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Helped-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Lucas Seiki Oshiro <lucasseikioshiro@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
We presently use the ".txt" extension for our AsciiDoc files. While not
wrong, most editors do not associate this extension with AsciiDoc,
meaning that contributors don't get automatic editor functionality that
could be useful, such as syntax highlighting and prose linting.
It is much more common to use the ".adoc" extension for AsciiDoc files,
since this helps editors automatically detect files and also allows
various forges to provide rich (HTML-like) rendering. Let's do that
here, renaming all of the files and updating the includes where
relevant. Adjust the various build scripts and makefiles to use the new
extension as well.
Note that this should not result in any user-visible changes to the
documentation.
Signed-off-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
