Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] git-gui: change to display the combined diff in the case of conflicts.

From: Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@viscovery.net>
Date: Mar 31, 2010, 11:39 UTC
Message-ID: <4BB3346C.7070700@viscovery.net>
In-Reply-To: <k2p2cfc40321003310412hf4c6d642n4349af3f644829ff@mail.gmail.com>

Am 3/31/2010 13:12, schrieb Jon Seymour:

Show 11 quoted lines

>> I looked at the result, but it does not convince me. In my case, I have a
>> large file that has many changes between the "maint" and "master"
>> branches. Whenever there are conflicts after merging "maint" to "master",
>> I see all these changes, and really they *are* uninteresting.
>>
> 
> I think you may have missed the point of my patch.
> 
> The successfully merged lines may be uninteresting from the point of
> deciding what I should *do* but they
> are highly relevant to the question of what I really, really should *not* do.

How would you decide that if you cannot read the information that is presented to you?

Can you tell without thinking for 10 seconds which of these two changes is lost if you choose "Use local version"?

@@@ ... @@@
  x
 +foo
  y
@@@ ... @@@
  a
- bar
  b

Oh, it's easy for the conflicted part of the diff, which you'll see elsewhere as well:

@@@ ... @@@
  r
++<<<<<<< HEAD
 +foo
++=======
+ bar
++>>>>>>> some-branch
  s

Do not forget that in a case (like mine) where the non-condensed diff is actually huge, the conflict markers would no exactly be easy to find in the diff.

Show 8 quoted lines

> If there are 100 successfully merged lines from each side of the merge
> but only 2 conflicting lines, should I
> 
> a) pick the remote branch
> b) pick the local branch
> c) manually edit the conflicting line (or use a merge tool)
> 
> The point of my patch it to make it much more likely that you will pick c).

And I was saying almost the same, namely that it should not only be "much more likely" to pick c, but to *always* pick c (by making it the only option available).

> In the current state, the GUI doesn't make it clear that either a) or
> b) is almost certainly a huge mistake.

And therefore I suggest to disable these options.

> Now, you could disable Use Remote and Use Local for all but the very
> simplest cases - but you don't need it for these
> cases. Hell, ed would do for these.

Which are those very simplest cases that you are referring to? If you mean modify/delete conflicts, then I indeed would like to keep the options for them.

That said, your earlier patch that presented the diff against HEAD was not bad after all.

-- Hannes