Elijah Newren wrote:
> However, my question here about what to write to the working tree for
> a rename/rename(2to1) conflict in one particular corner case still
> remains. Should a two-way merge be performed even if it may result in
> nested sets of conflict markers, or is that a sufficiently bad outcome
> for the user that it's the one case we do want to write colliding
> files out to different temporary paths?
Nested conflict markers only happen in the conflictstyle=diff3 case, I
merge-recursive writes them already. I've often wished that it would
use a union merge strategy when building the common ancestor to avoid
the nested conflicts that rerere doesn't understand. But anyway,
that's an orthogonal issue: in the rename/rename context, it should be
fine to write nested conflict markers since that's consistent with
what merge-recursive already does.