Re: Opinions on changing add/add conflict resolution?

From: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Date: Mar 13, 2018, 22:42 UTC
Message-ID: <CABPp-BGXdBJSi5EUyeom0PcgRXvwNy4EBA71MP3FZK9xsw-jdA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqbmfr1uj3.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>

On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 3:26 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

> Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Cool, thanks for the context.  I'm happy to go down this path, but
>> there is one question I'd like your opinion on: what if the
>> intermediate content merges have conflicts themselves?  If that
>> question isn't clear, let me be more precise...
>
> I think you answered this yourself after (re)discovering the virtual
> ancestor merge in the recursive strategy, and no longer need my
> input here ;-)

The question about what to put into the index was another issue, and it's good to hear that you seem to approve of my logic on that one. Thanks. :-)

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. Should a two-way merge be performed even if it may result in nested sets of conflict markers, or is that a sufficiently bad outcome for the user that it's the one case we do want to write colliding files out to different temporary paths?