On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 05:38:52PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 12:09:28PM -0700, Jacob Helwig wrote: > > > > So are these patches good to go forward with? No major objections in a > > > over a week's time. > > > > > > -Dan > > > > I'd +1 David's suggestion of calling this "vimdiff3", I'd like to still > > be able to access the current behavior, since I have merge.conflictstyle > > = diff3, and already see the merge base when I use (g)vimdiff with > > mergetool. > > Of course as soon as I say "nobody objected" in my other email, this > arrives. :) > > Can we provide both, but make the vimdiff3 behavior the preferred > default? It better matches the default merge.conflictstyle, and people > who are using diff3 obviously understand how to tweak config. > > -Peff +1 to Peff's suggestion. Dan, can you reroll the patch so that the new behavior is "(g)vimdiff" and the old behavior is available as "(g)vimdiff2"? I do slightly dislike having both from the maintenance POV. But, it's better to keep it around than to rip it away from happy users' hands. Thanks for speaking up Jacob. Cheers, -- David -- 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