On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: > Elijah Newren <new...@gmail.com> writes: > >> 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. > > Hmph, is it a bad idea to model this after what recursive merge > strategy does? I think what is written out from that codepath to > the working tree has the nested conflict markers (with a bit of > tweak to the marker length, IIRC) in it.
Oh, that's cool; I didn't know that. It looks like that was introduced in commit d694a17986 ("ll-merge: use a longer conflict marker for internal merge", 2016-04-14). That seems like a good idea; I'll go with that. Thanks.