2025年6月7日 00:47，Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> 写道： > > lidongyan <502024330056@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> I could add this test case into my patch. Though I don’t understand >>> + git rev-parse HEAD >.git/MERGE_HEAD && > > That was not about telling "show --merge" to work on any meaningful > data and to produce any useful output. I knew the step to prepare > for "show --merge" was leaky, so I gave a very minimum that can tickle > that codepath. I wasn't of course proud of the direct manipulation > of the filesystem (as recent "git update-ref MERGE_HEAD HEAD" would > not even allow us to do this, sheesh, not very convenient). I understand. `show —merge` means the codepath must go through prepare_show_merge() And `update-index` with index which has stage greater than 0 let prepare_show_merge() go through loop and add index to prune. Thus cause a leak. > > If you came up with a sequence that produces a situation to use the > "git show --merge" command in a more realistic way, like below, that > is wonderful. > >> If HEAD is equal to MERGE_HEAD. Would git show —merge still >> works as usual? How about something like this >> >> diff --git a/t/t7007-show.sh b/t/t7007-show.sh >> index d6cc69e0f2..f693b6e24b 100755 >> --- a/t/t7007-show.sh >> +++ b/t/t7007-show.sh >> @@ -167,4 +167,28 @@ test_expect_success 'show --graph is forbidden' ' >> test_must_fail git show --graph HEAD >> ' >> >> +test_expect_success 'unmerged index' ' >> + git reset --hard && >> + >> + git switch -C base && >> + echo "base" > conflicting && >> + git add conflicting && >> + git commit -m "base" && >> + >> + git branch hello && >> + git branch goodbye && >> + >> + git switch hello && >> + echo "hello" > conflicting && >> + git commit -am "hello" && >> + >> + git switch goodbye && >> + echo "goodbye" > conflicting && >> + git commit -am "goodbye" && >> + >> + git switch hello && >> + test_must_fail git merge goodbye && >> + git show --merge HEAD >> +' >> + >> test_done >
