Re: make test Unexpected passes

> Isn't what the test expects bogus in the first place?  I'd suggest
> removing the test as "pointless waste of resource".
>
> Comments?
>
> -- >8 --

> Manual merge resolution by users fundamentally depends on being able
> to tell what is the tracked contents and what is the separator lines
> added by "git merge" to tell users which block of lines came from
> where.  You can deliberately craft a file with lines that resemble
> conflict marker lines to make it impossible for the user (here, the
> outer merge of merge-recursive also counts as a user of the internal
> merge) to tell which part is which, and write a test to demonstrate
> that with such a file that "git merge" fundamentally cannot work
> with and has to fail on.  It however is pointless and waste of time
> and resource to run such a test that asserts the obvious.
>
> In real life, people who do need to track files with such lines that
> have <<<< ==== >>>> as their prefixes set the conflict-marker-size
> attribute to make sure they will be able to tell between the tracked
> lines that happen to begin with these (confusing) prefixes and the
> marker lines that are added by "git merge".