On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Ciaran <ciaranj@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >>> I suspect that you may be able to simply use "$BASE" for that, no? It >>> will be cleaned up when cleanup_temp_files() is run anyway (warning: I do >>> not use mergetool, and I am writing this only from my cursory looking of >>> the script, so take this with a large grain of salt). >> I don't think so, the BASE file isn't created at-all in this scenario afaict. > > Hmm, just like $BASE, your .no-base is not created at all in this scenario > either, but you create it yourself in your patch, and because you picked a > new filename for that temporary file, you also need to worry about > cleaning it up. > > Why can't that temporary file be "$BASE"? That is what I was asking. > Then you would still create an empty file (but see *1*), and can rely on > existing codepaths to clean it up. > > IOW, wouldn't it be far simpler to turn the part you are patching into > these three lines? > > $base_present || >"$BASE" > "$merge_tool_path" "$BASE" "$LOCAL" "$REMOTE" "$MERGED" > check_unchanged Yes, that is a *much* better solution that solves my issue perfectly ;) Patch to follow. <!-- Snip --> > [Footnote] > > *1* It also may be worth considering to employ the "use either an empty > file or use the common parts of merged files, whichever makes the > merge simpler, as a phony base" technique found in git-merge-one-file. > I did consider your earlier post on this, but it seems that that perforce's merge client is sufficiently smart enough to do this alignment/matching itself, so the effort isn't required (imho) for this client (which is the client that I'm experiencing 'pain' with atm ! Thanks, - Cj. -- 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