From: Bert Wesarg Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 09:18:25 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] merge-file: add option to specify the marker size Message-ID: <36ca99e91003010118m77b26675j63ed983fcb702ace@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <36ca99e91002282315m6c3caf1el61755c0d96d21cf2@mail.gmail.com> [ Sorry again, I removed the list again ] On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 08:15, Bert Wesarg wrote: > On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 21:13, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Bert Wesarg writes: >> >>> Signed-off-by: Bert Wesarg >>> >>> --- >>> >>> This can probably improved in a way, that the marker size will be taken >>> from attributes. This could be done by an explicit --marker-size-by-path >>> option or an option which names one of the three input files as a git >>> path. >> >> You don't want any option that is specifically about "marker size".  An >> option to specify the path to take attributes for would be the right way >> to go.  You might want to see "hash-object --path" for an inspiration. >> > So you suggest that it is only possible to set the conflict marker > size for merges inside a git directory? I don't think this is a good > idea, for a tool which is designed to work also outside of a git > directory. > > In any case, if we add a --path option, merge-file should use ll_merge > in this case, right? > > Bert