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?


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

> 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

Reply via email to