Re: [PATCH 08/12] merge-ort: provide a merge_get_conflicted_files() helper function

From: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Date: Jan 29, 2022, 16:47 UTC
Message-ID: <CABPp-BERtRDeyF3MhOQhAFwjoykOKwXoz6635NK7j2SEKp1b3A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <0d7ba76c-9824-9953-b8ce-6abe810e2778@kdbg.org>

On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 12:23 AM Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org> wrote:

Show 20 quoted lines

>
> Just a heckling from the peanut gallery...
>
> Am 29.01.22 um 07:08 schrieb Elijah Newren:
> > On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 8:55 AM Johannes Schindelin
> > <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
> >> Meaning: Even if stage 3 is missing from the first conflict and stage 1 is
> >> missing from the second conflict, in the output we would see stages 1, 2,
> >> 2, 3, i.e. a duplicate stage 2, signifying that we're talking about two
> >> different conflicts.
> >
> > I don't understand why you're fixating on the stage here.  Why would
> > you want to group all the stage 2s together, count them up, and then
> > determine there are N conflicting files because there are N stage 2's?
>
> Looks like you are misunderstanding Dscho's point: When you have two
> conflicts, the first with stages 1 and 2, the second with stages 2 and
> 3, then the 2s occur lumped together when the 4 lines are printed in a
> row, and that is the cue to the parser where the new conflict begins.
> Dscho did not mean that all N 2s of should be listed together.

Ah, so...I didn't understand his misunderstanding? Using stages as a cue to the parser where the new conflict begins is broken; you should instead check for when the filename listed on a line does not match the filename on the previous line. In particular, if one conflict has stages 1 and 2, and the next conflict has only stage 3, then looking at stages only might cause you to accidentally lump unrelated conflicts together.