Edward Thomson <ethom...@microsoft.com> writes: > Edward Thomson [ethom...@microsoft.com] wrote: >> Junio C Hamano [mailto:gis...@pobox.com] wrote: >> > * Path A may have only stage #1, while path B and C has only stage >> > #2 and stage #3 (the user would have to notice these three >> > correspond to each other, and resolve manually). >> > >> > You would want to annotate "B at stage #2 seems to have been at A >> > in the original" (similarly for C#3) if you choose to do so. >> >> If we're going to make changes to the way conflicts are recorded in the main >> index, then I would prefer this approach. It is unambiguous and all data >> about >> all sides are recorded, including the names that items had in their >> respective >> branches. > > Junio, did you have additional thoughts on this?
Not at this moment. I think we have covered the principles (do not unnecessarily duplicate information, do not break existing implementations unnecessarily, etc.) already, and we know how we want to record "one side renamed A to B, the other side renamed A to C" case, but I do not think the discussion covered all cases yet. -- 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
