> I agree that the approach taken here is a sensible way to implement
> the design, _if_ the design and the problem it tries to solve makes
> sense. I am not sure about that yet myself, though.
This is a "first things first".
What aspect of the problem to be solved is in question?
From here, it seems obvious that there is textual data where the
supression of sha1 identical files as non-conflicting isn't always
proper. I'm somewhat doubtful that the workflow design is really the
problem -- I either have to remove a required feature of the broader
design, or I have to move the problem somewhere else that isn't as
well suited to handle it. git seems the right tool for the job, but
for the parameterization of merge.
I'd be happy for some route that doesn't involve changing upstream
git, but it doesn't sound like that exists.
Thanks!