On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 15:17:29 +0000 [email protected] wrote: > I'm inclined to go with the shorter one-line conflict marks. Other > thoughts from the user community?
Love the idea to add context to the conflict lines. How about a compromise solution? Like: 0 1 2 3 <<<<<<< BEGIN CONFLICT 9617c665 "initial checkin" 444 >>>>>>> MID CONFLICT e332c6da "new branch checkin" <<<<<<< 999 >>>>>>> END CONFLICT 5 6 7 8 9 Not sure we need the exact text "BEGIN MERGE CONFLICT", since we already know that's what it is. And could we use the shorter version of the checkin identifier? Wouldn't that be sufficient? How about making the "mid-line" a bit more identifiable? Maybe put the second part of the conflict context there? Just some ideas there. Now please begin shooting. :P Regards, Adam J Richardson
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
