Re: Rename conflicts in the index

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Apr 2, 2013, 21:20 UTC
Message-ID: <7vr4isaath.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <A54CE3E330039942B33B670D971F857403A0F540@TK5EX14MBXC253.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

Edward Thomson <ethomson@microsoft.com> writes:

Show 15 quoted lines

> Edward Thomson [ethomson@microsoft.com] wrote:
>> Junio C Hamano [mailto:gister@pobox.com] wrote:
>> >  * Path A may have only stage #1, while path B and C has only stage
>> >    #2 and stage #3 (the user would have to notice these three
>> >    correspond to each other, and resolve manually).
>> >
>> >    You would want to annotate "B at stage #2 seems to have been at A
>> >    in the original" (similarly for C#3) if you choose to do so.
>> 
>> If we're going to make changes to the way conflicts are recorded in the main
>> index, then I would prefer this approach.  It is unambiguous and all data about
>> all sides are recorded, including the names that items had in their respective
>> branches.
>
> Junio, did you have additional thoughts on this?

Not at this moment.

I think we have covered the principles (do not unnecessarily duplicate information, do not break existing implementations unnecessarily, etc.) already, and we know how we want to record "one side renamed A to B, the other side renamed A to C" case, but I do not think the discussion covered all cases yet.