Re: Opinions on changing add/add conflict resolution?

From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Date: Mar 13, 2018, 22:56 UTC
Message-ID: <20180313225639.GC147135@aiede.svl.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABPp-BGXdBJSi5EUyeom0PcgRXvwNy4EBA71MP3FZK9xsw-jdA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

Elijah Newren wrote:

Show 6 quoted lines

> However, my question here about what to write to the working tree for
> a rename/rename(2to1) conflict in one particular corner case still
> remains.  Should a two-way merge be performed even if it may result in
> nested sets of conflict markers, or is that a sufficiently bad outcome
> for the user that it's the one case we do want to write colliding
> files out to different temporary paths?

Nested conflict markers only happen in the conflictstyle=diff3 case, I would think.

merge-recursive writes them already. I've often wished that it would use a union merge strategy when building the common ancestor to avoid the nested conflicts that rerere doesn't understand. But anyway, that's an orthogonal issue: in the rename/rename context, it should be fine to write nested conflict markers since that's consistent with what merge-recursive already does.

Thanks, Jonathan