Re: feature suggestion: optimize common parts for checkout --conflict=diff3

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Mar 7, 2013, 17:26 UTC
Message-ID: <7v1ubrnmtu.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <20130307080411.GA25506@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

Show 16 quoted lines

> I was also curious whether it would the diff3/zealous combination would
> trigger any weird corner cases. In particular, I wanted to know how the
> example you gave in that commit of:
>
>   postimage#1: 1234ABCDE789
>                   |    /
>                   |   /
>   preimage:    123456789
>                   |   \
>                   |    \
>   postimage#2: 1234AXCYE789
>
> would react with diff3 (this is not the original example, but one with
> an extra "C" in the middle of postimage#2, which could in theory be
> presented as split hunks). However, it seems that we do not do such hunk
> splitting at all, neither for diff3 nor for the "merge" representation.

Without thinking about it too deeply,...

I think the "RCS merge" _could_ show it as "1234A<B=X>C<D=Y>E789" without losing any information (as it is already discarding what was in the original in the part that is affected by the conflict, i.e. "56 was there").

Let's think aloud how "diff3 -m" _should_ split this. The most straight-forward representation would be "1234<ABCDE|56=AXCYE>789", that is, where "56" was originally there, one side made it to "ABCDE" and the other "AXCYE".

You could make it "1234<AB|5=AX><C|=C><DE|6=YE>789", and that is technically correct (what there were in the shared original for the conflicted part is 5 and then 6), but the representation pretends that it knows more than there actually is information, which may be somewhat misleading. All these three are equally plausible split of the original "56":

	1234<AB|=AX><C|=C><DE|56=YE>789
	1234<AB|5=AX><C|=C><DE|6=YE>789
	1234<AB|56=AX><C|=C><DE|=YE>789

and picking one over others would be a mere heuristic. All three are technically correct representations and it is just the matter of which one is the easiest to understand. So, this is the kind of "misleading but not incorrect".

In all these cases, the middle part would look like this:

	<<<<<<< ours
        C
        ||||||| base
        =======
	C
        >>>>>>> theirs

in order to honor the explicit "I want to view all three versions to examine the situation" aka "--conflict=diff3" option. We cannot reduce it to just "C". That will make it "not just misleading but is actively wrong".