On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 10:30:36AM -1000, Martin von Zweigbergk wrote: > > I think rather than thinking of these as expanded conflict markers, it > > would probably be a more useful workflow to just look at the diff in a > > separate command (so just show the conflicts, not everything else, and > > just show the diff). I suspect it could be made pretty nice with some > > simple editor support (e.g., open a new buffer in the editor showing the > > diff for just the current hunk, or even the current _half_ of the hunk > > you're on). > > At some point it seems better to delegate to a proper merge tool. You > said that you use vim, so I'm a little surprised that you use conflict > markers instead of using vimdiff. I don't use vim and I've never > really used vimdiff. I still use conflict markers, mostly out of > habit, but also because I usually run in a tmux session on a remote > machine. I feel like I should try to switch to meld. Yeah, I think your first sentence might be the most important takeaway. ;) I have tried using vimdiff in the past, but didn't really like it. My recollection is that it was clunky to navigate, and I could fix most conflicts much faster just by looking at them. But I have never been a heavy user of the multi-window multi-buffer stuff in vim. My "open a new buffer in the editor" is probably a lie; for me it is more like "open a new terminal and run a command at the shell". :) -Peff
