Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] rerere: mention caveat about unmatched conflict markers

> Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > Yeah that makes sense.  Maybe something like this?
> >
> > (replying to <xmqq4lffk3ez.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com> here to keep
> > the patches in one thread)
> >
> >  Documentation/technical/rerere.txt | 4 ++++
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/technical/rerere.txt b/Documentation/technical/rerere.txt
> > index e65ba9b0c6..8fefe51b00 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/technical/rerere.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/technical/rerere.txt
> > @@ -149,7 +149,10 @@ version, and the sorting the conflict hunks, both for the outer and the
> >  inner conflict.  This is done recursively, so any number of nested
> >  conflicts can be handled.
> >  
> > +Note that this only works for conflict markers that "cleanly nest".  If
> > +there are any unmatched conflict markers, rerere will fail to handle
> > +the conflict and record a conflict resolution.
> > +
> >  The only difference is in how the conflict ID is calculated.  For the
> >  inner conflict, the conflict markers themselves are not stripped out
> >  before calculating the sha1.
> 
> Looks good to me except for the line count on the @@ line.  The
> preimage ought to have 6 (not 7) lines and adding 4 new lines makes
> it a 10 line postimage.  I wonder who miscounted the hunk---it is
> immediately followed by the signature cut mark "-- \n" and some
> tools (including Emacs's patch editing mode) are known to
> misinterpret it as a preimage line that was removed.