Re: Conflict editing

From: Martin Langhoff <martin.langhoff@gmail.com>
Date: Mar 4, 2007, 21:59 UTC
Message-ID: <46a038f90703041359w3cf5ff14n85445396c0ffc422@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20070304181044.GC8560@thunk.org>

On 3/5/07, Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:

Show 6 quoted lines

> It currently uses a hard-wired preference order for the GUI merge
> tools, based on the current functionality of said merge tools, but the
> plan is to add options parsing and a config option to allow a
> user-specified override.
>
> Any comments, suggestions?

I find xxdiff much better than meld, tkdiff and kdiff -- but maybe I just don't know how to use them, or they have gotten better in the last few months.

I had written (and posted) a git-xxdiff earlier. A (minor) concern is that from a packaging and dependencies perspective, the packager has to suggest *all* of them, and still a default install may not work at all -- it might be a good idea to suggest what to install in the error message. Or depend on all of them (yuck!).

One thing I _don't_ want as a user is to see the graphical mergers starting by default. Most merges are trivial, and I can just edit them in emacs or vi.

And when a merge is really hard, and calls for merge-centric tools, I open gitk alongside to see what commits happened on each side.

cheers,

martin