Hi Phillip,

On Fri, 13 Apr 2018, Phillip Wood wrote:

> On 12/04/18 23:02, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > So: the order of the 3-way merges does matter.
> >
> > [...]
> Those conflicts certainly look intimidating (and the ones in your later
> reply with the N way merge example still look quite complicated). One
> option would be just to stop and have the user resolve the conflicts
> after each conflicting 3-way merge rather than at the end of all the
> merges. There are some downsides: there would need to be a way to
> explain to the user that this is an intermediate step (and what that
> step was); the code would have to do some book keeping to know where it
> had got to; and it would stop and prompt the user to resolve conflicts
> more often which could be annoying but hopefully they'd be clearer to
> resolve because they weren't nested.

I thought about that. But as I pointed out: the order of the merges *does*
matter. Otherwise we force the user to resolve conflicts that they
*already* resolved during this rebase...


Reply via email to