Re: Opinions on changing add/add conflict resolution?
- From
Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
- Date
- Mar 13, 2018, 23:04 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CABPp-BEBvywrCAeLAe-LQ9XOJ=sKG0-vYJRrXYoHZebUM-kd7A@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqq7eqf1tc9.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
Show 10 quoted lines
> Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> writes: > >> However, my question here about what to write to the working tree for >> a rename/rename(2to1) conflict in one particular corner case still >> remains. > > Hmph, is it a bad idea to model this after what recursive merge > strategy does? I think what is written out from that codepath to > the working tree has the nested conflict markers (with a bit of > tweak to the marker length, IIRC) in it.
Oh, that's cool; I didn't know that. It looks like that was introduced in commit d694a17986 ("ll-merge: use a longer conflict marker for internal merge", 2016-04-14). That seems like a good idea; I'll go with that. Thanks.