On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 03:14:23AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Seth House <seth@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > This is where I will part this particular debate. > > Thanks for your contribution so far. Re-reading my message now, I sounded overly final. I appreciated your initial warm welcome and I'm still very much present on this list and still very much invested in seeing this patch through to consensus and completion -- and that includes writing code if needed. To rephrase: I don't wish to spend any more of my time debating `mergetool.autoMerge` vs. `mergetool.autoMerge || mergetool.$tool.autoMerge` and I appreciate that others on this list have joined that debate. I think all the angles and opinions have been covered at this point so perhaps the time has come for a vote or for an executive decision. --- The task of re-reviewing all the mergetools surveyed in the original blog post is now complete. I took the opportunity to update most of the original post to reflect the discussion and audience here. https://www.eseth.org/2020/mergetools.html The "Mergetools Comparison" section is long and is not very easy to read with the current layout. Sorry. I wanted to get this published quickly and I'll try to clean it up and add a proper TOC. For now, watch out for the "Summary" under each tool. tl;dr: I didn't see any noteworthy problems with any tool. Mostly positive results and some no-impact results. The two minor impacts were from the two tools that make use of LOCAL and REMOTE as historical references; I think those are safe to ignore because one is mine and the other builds on mine. All the other surveyed tools that reference older versions of the conflicted file appear to actively query the Git repository to obtain that info. I'd still like to add more tools and do deeper dives with some of the tools already surveyed so suggestions, feedback, and criticisms are very welcome. That said, I am now feeling comfortable about adding this to Git and defaulting it to enabled. :D
