Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> writes:
> You could make it "1234<AB|5=AX><C|=C><DE|6=YE>789", and that is
> technically correct (what there were in the shared original for the
> conflicted part is 5 and then 6), but the representation pretends
> that it knows more than there actually is information, which may be
> somewhat misleading. All these three are equally plausible split of
> the original "56":
> and picking one over others would be a mere heuristic. All three
> are technically correct representations and it is just the matter of
> which one is the easiest to understand. So, this is the kind of
> "misleading but not incorrect".
I forgot to say that youu could even do something silly like:
> In all these cases, the middle part would look like this:
> <<<<<<< ours
> ||||||| base
> >>>>>>> theirs
> in order to honor the explicit "I want to view all three versions to
> examine the situation" aka "--conflict=diff3" option. We cannot
> reduce it to just "C". That will make it "not just misleading but
> is actively wrong".
I also forgot to say that the issue is the same to reduce
which is unconditionally correct and then for all x reduce <x|=x> to
which your zealous-diff3 would do. So squashing that <C|=C> in the
middle would be consistent if you take the zealous-diff3 route.
But again, that is discarding the information of the original, which
the user explicitly asked from "diff3 -m", i.e. show all three to
examine the situation. If the user wants to operate _without_ the
original, the user would have asked for "RCS merge" style output, so
I am still not sure if that is a sensible mode of operation for diff3
to begin with.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html