On 13/12/06, Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote:
xdl_merge(), as Git uses it, tries harder to find the true conflicts. So, if the files actually differ in only one line, just this line will be shown as conflict.
I gave the latest GIT a try and it works OK with StGIT. This new merge looks much better than diff3 (or rcs merge) because it only shows the true conflicts. What it the relation between git-merge-recursive and "git-read-tree -m" (if any)? I currently still use "git-read-tree -m" for some merges because of the speed gain due to the --agressive option (really noticeable when picking a patch from an older branch). Probably git-merge-recursive cannot implement this since it needs to track deletion/additions for rename detection. Are there any other things to be aware if I completely replace the "git-read-tree + diff3" with git-merge-recursive? One nice addition to git-merge-recursive (probably only useful to StGIT) would be more meaningful labeling of the conflict regions, passed via a command line similar to the "diff3 -L" option. StGIT generates "patched", "current" and "ancestor" labels with diff3. Yet another nice feature would be the ancestor region (which diff3 doesn't add either but it gets added by emacs' ediff-merge-files-with-ancestor function if you use the interactive merge with StGIT). -- Catalin - 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