On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 18:12, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I think it would be better to wrap such merge tools by: >> 1. passing them BASE LOCAL REMOTE; >> 2. checking whether or not BASE hase been modified: >> * if it has, then copying it to MERGED, >> * if it has not, exiting with return code 1 (merge failed). >> This check can be by either saving and comparing the mdate, or perhaps >> the SHA-1 hash of the BASE file. >> >> If this sounds good enough, I can dive into git-mergetoo--lib and >> implement it. In the meantime, here is an example of a custom merge tool >> that wraps meld for that purpose. > > I think you forgot to include the example. Anyway, at first glance it > sounds like a sensible idea. David et al: thoughts? Sounds sensible to me, too. (Although I'm not affected, as fortunately the GUI merge tools I've been using so far, namely ECMerge and Beyond Compare 3, both allow to specify a separate merge output.) -- Sebastian Schuberth -- 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