Hi Phillip, On Fri, 13 Apr 2018, Phillip Wood wrote: > On 12/04/18 23:02, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > So: the order of the 3-way merges does matter. > > > > [...] > > Those conflicts certainly look intimidating (and the ones in your later > reply with the N way merge example still look quite complicated). One > option would be just to stop and have the user resolve the conflicts > after each conflicting 3-way merge rather than at the end of all the > merges. There are some downsides: there would need to be a way to > explain to the user that this is an intermediate step (and what that > step was); the code would have to do some book keeping to know where it > had got to; and it would stop and prompt the user to resolve conflicts > more often which could be annoying but hopefully they'd be clearer to > resolve because they weren't nested. I thought about that. But as I pointed out: the order of the merges *does* matter. Otherwise we force the user to resolve conflicts that they *already* resolved during this rebase... Ciao, Dscho
