From: Catalin Marinas Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 09:56:50 GMT Subject: Re: Unresolved issues #3 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <7vbqqics3g.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> On 18/08/06, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Catalin Marinas writes: > > In StGIT I can configure the merge command and I currently use the > > attached script (I need to add it to the StGIT repository). It tries > > diff3 first and, if that fails, invokes emacs' merge (can use xxdiff > > as well). It also checks whether the file was modified in case I want > > to exit and solve the conflict later (maybe after getting conflict > > information for the other files). > > Thanks. That is interesting. However, the workflow Martin > wants to use this is a bit different from this. He wants > regular diff3/merge to leave conflicted result and have "xxdiff > -U" to sort out the resulting mess (I do that manually myself > but without any wrapper). The problem with this approach is that you lose the ancestor information. You want "diff3 -E" command to not report conflicts if the changes are the same but the output no longer has the ancestor information. The -A option would keep the ancestor (and use "xxdiff --unmerge3" instead) but it always reports a conflict even if the changes are the same. Are there any diff3 options I missed? That's why I prefer to explicitely pass the 3 files to either emacs or xxdiff. > > # default merger > > if os.system('diff3 -L current -L ancestor -L patched -m -E ' > > '"%s" "%s" "%s" > "%s"' > > % (branch1, ancestor, branch2, output)): > > # interactive merge > > if os.path.exists(output): > > mtime = os.path.getmtime(output) > > else: > > mtime = 0 > > I wonder why you do not error out when "if os.path.exists(output)" > does not hold true; you are redirecting into it, so the possibilities > are: You are right. I was thinking about the file removed in the current branch but modified in the other. However, this would never invoke diff3. Thanks. -- Catalin