# 
# 
# patch "tests/test_a_merge_5/__driver__.lua"
#  from [0f0e4d7042ceb2fe560c0e8b082bbaabc265e61c]
#    to [2bb57fcc0cd287cb07a3b218504dda98525cf90b]
# 
============================================================
--- tests/test_a_merge_5/__driver__.lua	0f0e4d7042ceb2fe560c0e8b082bbaabc265e61c
+++ tests/test_a_merge_5/__driver__.lua	2bb57fcc0cd287cb07a3b218504dda98525cf90b
@@ -18,10 +18,18 @@
 --             base64< gzip<data> > & dat,
 --             std::string const & table);
 
--- This seems to be a really nasty testcase somehow.  monotone and
--- merge(1) give identical, incorrect output.  diff3(1) reports a
--- conflict.  xxdiff merges cleanly, and, AFAICT, correctly.
+-- This seems to be a really nasty testcase somehow.
+-- merge(1) gives incorrect output.
+-- diff3(1) reports a conflict, and is incorrect.
+-- xxdiff and kdiff3 merge cleanly, and, AFAICT, correctly.
+-- monotone used to be identical to merge(1) here; now it gives a conflict.
 
+-- <njs`> the LCS that diff(1) calculates actually does explain the double-insertion
+-- <njs`> I hate line-merging.
+-- <njs`> anyway, I don't think there actually is a unique right way to merge this :-/
+
+-- Since there's apparently no right way, we accept the conflict as a pass.
+
 getfile("parent")
 getfile("left")
 getfile("right")
@@ -40,7 +48,7 @@
 copyfile("right", "testfile")
 commit()
 
-check(mtn("--branch=testbranch", "merge"), 0, false, false)
+check(mtn("--branch=testbranch", "merge"), 1, false, false)
 
+-- check(mtn("update"), 0, false, false)
+-- check(samefile("testfile", "correct"))
-check(mtn("update"), 0, false, false)
-xfail_if(true, samefile("testfile", "correct"))