Seth House wrote: > On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 03:46:37AM -0600, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > Yes, but the author of diffconflicts is not infallible. > > > > Explain why the *users* of the diffconclits tool would be affected > > negatively > > You've got that right -- I'm definitely not infallible. My point isn't > that I'm right; my point is that is my *preference*. Other mergetool > authors may have different preferences. > > I think where we're not seeing eye-to-eye is that you're focusing on > potential "negative" consequences whereas I'm talking about having more > information about the merge rather than less. Yes, but it's not due to some unreasonable hankering; it comes from a deep philosophical reason, which is Karl Popper's falsifiability principle [1] that solves both the problems of induction and demarcation. To put it plainly; if we want to know if all swans are white, where you claim the negative, and I the positive; it's much easier for you to prove the negative. All you need is *one* black swan. Analogously in our case; all you need is *one* negative consequence to prove your point, while me providing one hundred success cases does not prove my point. > There is very likely no negative consequences for most, if not all, > mergetools. Again: do you have *one* negative consequence that is present in tool a, but not in tool b? You say there is "very likely no negative consequences", but do you have evidence of *any* negative consequence? > I wrote the initial version of diffconflicts ten years ago and I've > been using it nearly every day since. I'm fairly confident in the end > result. What is a fact is there is undisputedly less information about > the merge if we overwrite LOCAL and REMOTE; But it's objectively not useful information. Edit your make-conflicts.sh script, and remove the first paragraph from poem.txt. What happens when you run "git merge"? Does it not complete the merge without *any* user interaction? Doesn't that mean that git considers the changes in the second paragraph to be non-conflicts? > This is where I will part this particular debate. All right. I'm still waiting for anyone to provide *one* example of a negative consequence. Cheers. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability -- Felipe Contreras
