RE: Rename conflicts in the index

From: Edward Thomson <ethomson@microsoft.com>
Date: Apr 2, 2013, 20:55 UTC
Message-ID: <A54CE3E330039942B33B670D971F857403A0F540@TK5EX14MBXC253.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <A54CE3E330039942B33B670D971F857403A0E20C@TK5EX14MBXC253.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

Edward Thomson [ethomson@microsoft.com] wrote:

Show 12 quoted lines

> 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?

What would you like from me to proceed? If the aforementioned seems reasonable, I can update Documentation/technical/index-format.txt and we can iron out the details in that fashion?

Thanks- -ed