Re: Strange merge conflicts against earlier merge.

From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Nov 12, 2005, 00:50 UTC
Message-ID: <7v1x1mk7tq.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0511111806070.25300@iabervon.org>

Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org> writes:

Show 12 quoted lines

> On Fri, 11 Nov 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> Come to think of it, we should signal that we are punting by
>> either exiting non-zero, or stuffing 0{40} SHA1 in stage1, so
>> that we can distinguish the case with two sides adding things
>> differently.  Daniel, what do you think?
>
> Probably don't want to exit non-zero, since we can deal with the rest of 
> the paths sensibly. All 0 SHA1 would work, if we want to identify this 
> case. On the other hand, I think the desired behavior at present is to 
> tell the user to pick the correct version of the two, which is the same as 
> if it's new in both sides, which is why I had it like that.

Yeah, and I have an updated merge-one-file in "pu" that tries to do a bit more interesting thing than just punting and asking the user, when both sides added different contents. I did not want to trigger that logic when we are doing case #16, and that was what my comment was about.