On 8/24/06, Junio C Hamano <junkio@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Jon Loeliger <jdl@xxxxxxx> writes:
...
> Any thoughts down this line? Good idea? Bad idea?
We had some discussion on this with Catalin in "Unresolved
issues #3" thread, regarding git-xxdiff (did I ever take it? I
liked it for what it does, but I was not sure about its
odd-man-out-ness) which was proposed by Martin Langhoff.
I've been slack on my reading of the list lately so totally missed out
on that thread. I'll go and read it now...
...
We should be able to make the part that call "merge/diff3" to
alternatively call xxdiff or its friends (kompare, emerge, pick
your favorites). Catalin even showed us a code snippet used in
StGIT for this in the thread.
I still think that the default initial behaviour git has is right.
Most conflicts are trivial, and people can deal with conflict markers
just right. It's what we are used to.
Except when it's a mess and it's unclear what goes where and why.
That's when git log --merge and my git-xxdiff help. I've also been
wondering if I can do gitk --merge easily ;-)
Martin's proposed tool git-xxdiff is meant to be invoked after
all of the above still left conflict markers. As Catalin
pointed out, using "xxdiff -U" to work on a file with conflict
markers is less powerful than working on three stages directly,
but on the other hand it can be used as the last stage fixup,
independent from what git-merge does internally. In other
words, it is meant to help solving the same problem but in a
different part of the workflow.
My implementation doesn't use the 3 stages either, just because I
didn't see xxdiff giving any stage a particular meaning. I should
rework it to have the 3 stages there, and trust users to read the
filename, which should say 'ancestor'.
In terms of the one script or many, if there is concensus on
OneScriptToRuleThemAll, I am not that opposed to reworking it to
something like
git-mergehelper --tool xxdiff path/to/file.c
with a big switch statement inside the script :-p What bothers me is
that there may be interesting parameters to pass to the invoked tool,
and other than having a stupid '--toolopts' passthrough, we are pretty
fsck'd.
By having separate git-xxdiff, git-meld, etc the git- scripts would
accept all/most of the same params that the tool accepts, therefore
feeling "natural" to users of the tool. A definite advantage, IMHO.
{Ugh, my implementation doesn't get that far. But hey, good intentions!}
cheers,
martin
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html