Re: Merge-Recursive Improvements

> On Feb 13, 2008, at 12:39 AM, Johannes Sixt wrote:
> 
>> Voltage Spike schrieb:
>>> Third, git doesn't appear to have any sense of context when performing a
>>> merge. Another contrived example which wouldn't be flagged as a merge
>>> conflict:
>>>
>>>   ptr = malloc(len); // Added in HEAD.
>>>   init();            // Included in merge-base.
>>>   ptr = malloc(len); // Added in "merge".
>>
>> You seem to say that you want this to result in a merge conflict.
> 
> Yes, it appears that I wasn't clear that I see the above as a conflict.
> 
>> I'm opposed to this: It means that you would mark a conflict if there
>> is a
>> single unchanged line between the two changes that come from the merged
>> branches. So far it has happened for me much more frequently that such
>> merges were correct, and I should not be bothered with conflict
>> markers. I
>> conciously prefer to pay the price that such a merge is incorrect on
>> occasion.
> 
> That is why I'm hoping to make it configurable. I know that we have more
> information than during a simple patch, but it seems odd that changes
> can be occurring all around your local modifications and you'll never be
> notified.
> 
> Which leads to a different point: does this lessen the value of falling
> back to a 3-way merge during a rebase?

>> You also need to draw a border line: a single unchanged line between the
>> changes? Or better also conflict at 2 lines? Or 3?
> 
> I naturally assumed the default number of context lines: 3. If I recall
> correctly, this isn't typically configurable.