On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 3:56 PM, Jonathan Nieder <jrnie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> would think.

Currently, yes.  To be clear, though, this change would make it
possible even when there is no recursive merge being done and when

> 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.

Cool, sounds like we're now all on the same page.

Someone in the future might hate us if they use conflictstyle=diff3,
and have a recursive merge, and have a rename/rename(2to1) conflict in
the virtual merge base with nested conflicts, and that resulting file
is also involved in a separate rename/rename(2to1) conflict in the
outer merge that has its own nested conflicts; we'd have up to four
levels of nested conflicts.  But for now, I'm going to write that off
as a crazy thought (or dismiss it as nigh impossible to reason about
regardless of what we did to help them) and just proceed ahead.  :-)

Reply via email to