Re: [RFC/PATCH] mergetool: use resolved conflicts in all the views

> I appreciate Felipe getting the discussion started.
> 
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 02:24:23PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > If there is none, then what is the benefit of doing the same thing
> > without running 3 checkout-index?
> 
> I wasn't aware of this plubming when I wrote the initial shell-script
> version of the technique. This is a much better approach (even *if*
> there's a negligible performance penalty). This nicely avoids
> UNIX/Windows line-ending surprises, and instead leans on
> already-configured Git defaults for those. Plus the non-text files
> benefit you mentioned is also huge.

> > as I understand "mergetool" is handed an
> > already conflicted state and asked to resolve it, it would not be
> > possible without at least looking at the stage #1 to recover the
> > base for folks who do not use diff3 style.
> 
> I feel strongly that LOCAL, REMOTE, and BASE should be left intact for
> this reason, Also because they aid readers in understanding the
> pre-conflicts versions of the file.
> 
> Rather mergetools (that support it) should be given the stage 1-3
> versions of the file in addition to the usual, unmodified, above three.
> Then each tool can decide whether or how to show each. Some graphical
> tools might be able to make effective use of all five (six?).