Vincent van Ravesteijn <vfr@xxxxxxx> writes: >> The problem I have with "rerere edit" is it is an offline process, >> and to validate that the update is correct, I would have to have the >> problematic merge in my working tree once _anyway_. And at that >> point, updating the target file in the working tree and recording >> the updated resolution using the usual "git rerere" feels a more >> natural way to do so, and more importantly, it is a more convenient >> way to do the "update and validate". On the other hand, "rerere >> edit" is a more convenient way to "update but not validate the >> result". > > This last part probably makes the difference indeed. In my case the > merge resolution was very very easy (the conflicting hunks have > fileformat version numbers), but it is a bit annoying and it requires > some 'vim'-skills to redo the merge conflict just to correct a newline > somewhere, or a missing ','. Now you confused me. How do you envision your "rerere edit" not to require "vim-skills" that is needed to navigate to the problematic line to correct a newline or comma? To put it another way, how much more "vim-skills" is needed to fix the conflict in the real file, than "rerere edit"? -- 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