From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 01:40:46 GMT
Subject: Re: Question on rerere
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0612200240360.19693@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de>
In-Reply-To: <7vy7p3mk1i.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

Hi,

On Tue, 19 Dec 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> writes:
> 
> > Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
> >
> >> IIUC then each conflict hunk is handled _separately_ like this: the 
> >> lexicographically smaller between the two file sections is displayed 
> >> first, regardless if a previous hunk had a different order. Not that it 
> >> matters most of the time, but isn't this dangerous?
> >
> > You are probably right.  Probably the right thing would be to
> > use the first hunk to determine the flipping order and stick to
> > that for the rest.
> >
> > Not that I've seen problems with the current behaviour, though.
> 
> Well, come to think of it, I think the current behaviour makes
> more sense.
> 
> Suppose you start from an original file "OO".  You have two
> branches that change it to "AO" and "BO", and another pair of
> branches that change it to "OC" and "OD".  Let's call these
> branches A, B, C, and D.
> 
> By merging A and C, you will get "AC"; you can get "AD", "BC"
> and "BD" the same way.
> 
> Now suppose you are on "AC" and merged "BD".  You would get
> "<A=B><C=D>".
> 
> If you were on "BD" and merged "AC" you would get "<B=A><D=C>".
> If you were on "AD" and merged "BC" you would get "<A=B><D=C>".
> 
> You got the idea?

Yes. Thanks!

Ciao,
Dscho