Re: [RFC/PATCH] mergetool: use resolved conflicts in all the views

From: Seth House <seth@eseth.com>
Date: Dec 19, 2020, 00:13 UTC
Message-ID: <20201219001358.GA153461@ellen>
In-Reply-To: <5fdc7a7d3a933_f4673208d0@natae.notmuch>

On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 03:46:37AM -0600, Felipe Contreras wrote:

> Yes, with evidence and reasoning.

[Citation needed]

> Yes, but the author of diffconflicts is not infallible.
> 
> Explain why the *users* of the diffconclits tool would be affected
> negatively

You've got that right -- I'm definitely not infallible. My point isn't that I'm right; my point is that is my *preference*. Other mergetool authors may have different preferences.

I think where we're not seeing eye-to-eye is that you're focusing on potential "negative" consequences whereas I'm talking about having more information about the merge rather than less.

There is very likely no negative consequences for most, if not all, mergetools. I wrote the initial version of diffconflicts ten years ago and I've been using it nearly every day since. I'm fairly confident in the end result. What is a fact is there is undisputedly less information about the merge if we overwrite LOCAL and REMOTE; as I've written, I think the tradeoff is worthwhile for most tools but a per-tool configuration will allow people that feel differently to choose differently.

This is where I will part this particular debate. If you are not arguing for the sake of arguing and if you are genuinely willing to have your mind changed then I invite you to reread my blog post, rewatch my YouTube video, and reread parts this thread -- watch out for where I talk about why LOCAL and REMOTE (and BASE) are useful.

Cheers.