Julia Evans, posting through GitGitGadget, introduced a seven-patch series adding a new manual page, gitmergeconflicts. It explains how to work through a merge conflict, with examples. Commands that can cause conflicts would link to it rather than re-explaining the process each time. Evans said she collected comments from Git users on the existing documentation and listed the specific issues the series targets in the first commit message. The thread has 98 messages in total.
Junio C Hamano reviewed it and made a number of line-level comments. He asked whether one comment was stale, noted that two entries were indented differently from the rest of a list, and asked whether different indentation for entries to be removed was intentional. He also flagged wording such as "removed one fruit from the list".
He also pushed for a tighter explanation of why removal is the correct resolution in an example. In his view, the reason is not just that one side removed something but that the other side did not touch it, and that indifference is what makes the removal the preferred action under three-way merge semantics. He suggested rewording the passage to begin with "since one side removed".
Hamano also ran make check-docs, which failed with "gitmergeconflicts.adoc:339: has no required 'SYNOPSIS' section!" That would need to be resolved before the page passes the documentation lint step. He said he would block time later to read the whole thing.
Ben Knoble said he is happy with this version based on the range-diff and suspects the series is reaching the point of diminishing returns. Follow-up patches in the thread touch git-pull, git-cherry-pick and git-revert documentation. It is not clear from the excerpts whether the SYNOPSIS problem has been fixed.