Re: Edit a rerere conflict resolution

> Vincent van Ravesteijn<vfr@lyx.org>  writes:
>
>>> The problem I have with "rerere edit" is it is an offline process,
>>> and to validate that the update is correct, I would have to have the
>>> problematic merge in my working tree once _anyway_.  And at that
>>> point, updating the target file in the working tree and recording
>>> the updated resolution using the usual "git rerere" feels a more
>>> natural way to do so, and more importantly, it is a more convenient
>>> way to do the "update and validate".  On the other hand, "rerere
>>> edit" is a more convenient way to "update but not validate the
>>> result".
>> This last part probably makes the difference indeed. In my case the
>> merge resolution was very very easy (the conflicting hunks have
>> fileformat version numbers), but it is a bit annoying and it requires
>> some 'vim'-skills to redo the merge conflict just to correct a newline
>> somewhere, or a missing ','.
> Now you confused me.  How do you envision your "rerere edit" not to
> require "vim-skills" that is needed to navigate to the problematic
> line to correct a newline or comma?  To put it another way, how much
> more "vim-skills" is needed to fix the conflict in the real file,
> than "rerere edit"?