On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 5:48 AM, Christian Halstrick <christian.halstr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> They don't. The conflicts are preserved into the virtual ancestor. The >> user only sees the final conflicts during merging of A and B with >> virtual X3 as the common ancestor. > > Ah, now I understand. When I merge X1 and X2 into the virtual X3 > I should not stop if this is not doable without conflict resolution. I > should store in memory the X3 content, including all the conflict > markers. If I finally merge A and B I will specify a common base > content which may contain conflict markers. Right?
Yes. If X3 content is large, it could flow to loose objects on disk. These will be unreachable and cleaned up automatically in a future garbage collection. > Are git config param's like merge.conflictstyle=diff3 are also > effective when creating the virtual X3 content? Couldn't that lead to > complicated conflict marker situations? In the area where you expect > common base content you again see conflict markers in diff3 style. Yes, but I think this is the correct behavior. The machine can't reconcile the two branches any better than this, so now a human has to step in and fix all of the conflicts. IIRC, this is uncommon. Usually you use A's common content as A and B do not differ relative to X3 in the regions where X3 has a conflict, so those conflicts aren't considered relevant when A and B merge. -- 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
