Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> >> While I agree with all of the above, I am currently fighting >> with a back-to-drawing-board design problem. >> >> The series made the low-level 3-way merge machinery >> customizable, which is a progress, but I think merge-recursive >> needs a hook to affect middle-level merge decision, similar to >> what git-merge-one-file does. > > Hmm. I think that it's not so much a "hook", as a "recursive merge is a > separate merge policy altogether, that just *defaults* to the same final > merge policy". I suspect I did not state my problem clearly. > For example, for a three-way merge, it makes sense to do the three-way > merge for the "internal" merge too. But it might be that that isn't true > for all strategies. Yes, that is what I alluded to in one of my previous message, but I think the "foo-recursive" idea is a good one. I was planning to give only "3-way" or "pick ancestor" choice to external low-level merge drivers. But I think that is a separate issue. The logic I said I wanted to override in the message you are responding to is the big toplevel if () else if () ... chain in process_entry(), and the nested if () else if () ... logic in merge_file(). They roughly implement what git-merge-one-file does. Currently low-level 3-way merge drivers are invoked only in some cases, exactly where git-merge-one-file used to invoke "RCS merge". The specific case of RelNotes symlink I wanted to override is one of the cases that ll_merge() is not even invoked. - 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