Luck, Tony>I think git did the "right thing", it just happened to be the thing that >Tony didn't want. Which makes it the "wrong thing", of course, but from a >purely technical standpoint, I don't think there's anything really wrong >with the merge.
On the plus side ... at least it wasn't a dumb user error this time [unless you count merging the incorrect patch in the first place, and then having to revert it :-) ].
Could GIT be smarter here? Perhaps it could pick a few likely ancestors and run the merge with each ... and then give some warnings if there are files that come out differently?
-Tony