> I looked at the result, but it does not convince me. In my case, I have a > large file that has many changes between the "maint" and "master" > branches. Whenever there are conflicts after merging "maint" to "master", > I see all these changes, and really they *are* uninteresting. > I think you may have missed the point of my patch. The successfully merged lines may be uninteresting from the point of deciding what I should *do* but they are highly relevant to the question of what I really, really should *not* do. If there are 100 successfully merged lines from each side of the merge but only 2 conflicting lines, should I a) pick the remote branch b) pick the local branch c) manually edit the conflicting line (or use a merge tool) The point of my patch it to make it much more likely that you will pick c). In the current state, the GUI doesn't make it clear that either a) or b) is almost certainly a huge mistake. Now, you could disable Use Remote and Use Local for all but the very simplest cases - but you don't need it for these cases. Hell, ed would do for these. jon. -- 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