Re: [PATCH 0/2] Respecting core.autocrlf when showing objects

> "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org> writes:
> 
> > (Is there any advantage, then, to the :n:filename syntax to a user?
> > Is it useful in any cases when they couldn't use HEAD or MERGE_HEAD
> > instead?  If not I might be tempted to cut this bit entirely (or
> > postpone it till later.)
> 
> I am somewhat torn between the two.
> 
> This section is only about merge conflicts, so using "checkout HEAD path"
> would be a good substitute.  The text flows better that way, because the
> previous paragraph talks about HEAD and MERGE_HEAD.
> 
> When people run "am -3", however, they may wish that they learned how the
> notation to name blob objects in the index (e.g. :2:path) can be used to
> examine and resolve the conflict, as there is no HEAD/MERGE_HEAD in that
> usage context.