Phillip Wood wrote: > On 10/06/2021 15:11, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > Phillip Wood wrote: > >> On 09/06/2021 20:28, Felipe Contreras wrote: > >>> Currently both merge.conflictStyle and `git commit --merge > >>> --conflict=diff3` don't work together, since the former wrongly > >>> overrides the later. > >>> > >>> The way merge configurations are handled is not correct. > >>> It should be possible to do git_config(merge_recursive_config, ...) just > >>> like we can with git_diff_basic_config and others. > >> > >> It would be helpful to explain what the problem with > >> merge_recursive_config() actually is rather than just saying "it should > >> be possible ..." > > > > The problem is that you can't do this: > > > > git_config(merge_recursive_config, NULL); > > > > As it was explained. > > You do not explain why you cannot do that % git grep merge_recursive_config static void merge_recursive_config(struct merge_options *opt) For starters it's a static function. Second, clearly the type of functions git_config() receives are not `void (*)(struct merge_options *)`. I mean, I do see value in explaning as much detail as needed in the commit message, but it shouldn't be a lesson on git's codebase: git_config() is a standard thing, and it's even mentioned in the user manual. https://git-scm.com/docs/user-manual#birdview-on-the-source-code > > That is the problem. I don't know how that's not clear. > > > >>> Therefore builtins like `git merge` can't call this function at the > >>> right time. > >> > > >>> We shuffle the functions a little bit so at least merge_recursive_config > >>> doesn't call git_xmerge_config directly and thus override previous > >>> configurations. > >> > >> Rather than papering of the problem, how difficult would it be to add a > >> field to ll_merge_options and pass the conflict style with that rather > >> than fiddling with the order that we set a global variable. > > > > Probably not that difficult, but then we also need a parser that > > converts from "diff3" to whatever values we decide in that new field. We > > would need a new parse_config_conflict_style() function. > > And that function will be only used by `git checkout` and nothing else. > > So I don't think there's much value in it. > > It would allow us to add a --conflict option to all the mergey commands > in the future and would be much easier to reason about than the approach > of juggling where we call git_xmerge_config(). Feel free to write a patch for that. > This patch requires us to audit all the code paths that end up in > merge_recursive_config() to make sure they now call > git_xmerge_config() themselves. You don't seem to have done that as > you don't know if am/apply are affected or not. That is a separate issue, that I already mentioned... > > That problem whoever, is orthogonal to this series. > > > >> Does this change affect 'am/apply -3'? - Do they still read the config > >> setting properly? > > > > Good question. I'll have to add more tests to make sure that works > > properly. here. -- Felipe Contreras
