Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Seth House <seth@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > 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. >> > >> > There is very likely no negative consequences for most, if not all, >> > mergetools. 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; as I've written, >> > I think the tradeoff is worthwhile for most tools but a per-tool >> > configuration will allow people that feel differently to choose >> > differently. >> >> Thanks for stressing this point. >> >> When a user or developer asks for a reasonable feature (e.g. >> configurability to suit personal taste), especially when there is no >> obvious downside for adding it, the burden of proof is on the party >> who refuses to add it > > Sorry, but no. > > You may be the final word in the git project, but the burden of proof is > an essential part of logic, not project-dependent, and that's just not > the case. > > *Anyone* that makes any claim has the burden of proof. Yes, and in this case, Seth already said he prefers to be able to see the original, and not necessarily all the users of his mergetool backend prefer the same thing. That is enough "proof" to me that the need exists. It is your turn to prove your (implicit) claim that it does more harm than it helps to allow such a preference expressed by end users. > Is there a conflict in this example? > > echo Hello > BASE > echo Hello > LOCAL > echo Hello. > REMOTE > git merge-file -p LOCAL BASE REMOTE Sorry, but I do not see why that example matters. Would such a case even come into the picture to be resolved by "git mergetool" in the first place?
