Re: Re: Merge with git-pasky II.

> Hmm. I actually don't like this naming. I think it's not too consistent,
> is irregular, therefore parsing it would be ugly. What I propose:
> 
> 12c\tname <- legend
>           <- original file
> D         <- tree #1 removed file
>  D        <- tree #2 removed file
> DD        <- both trees removed file
> M         <- tree #1 modified file
>  M
> DM*       <- conflict, tree #1 removed file, tree #2 modified file
> MD*
> MM        <- exact same modification
> MM*       <- different modifications, merging
> 
> This is generic, theoretically scales well even to more trees, is easy
> to parse trivially, still is human readable (actually the asterisk in
> the 'conflict' column is there basically only for the humans), is
> completely regular and consistent.