Junio C Hamano wrote: > Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > The subject would make more sense as 'xdiff: rename XDL_MERGE_DIFF3 to > > XDL_MERGE_STYLE_DIFF3' rather than using the new name of the constant > > alone. > > True. But why? When we look back in history few people would care what the previous name of XDL_MERGE_STYLE_DIFF3 was, and if they do, they don't necessarily need it in the title. > >> If we don't specify we are talking about a style, XDL_MERGE_MINIMAL > >> could be confused with a valid value instead of XDL_MERGE_DIFF3, which > >> it isn't. > > > > I don't object to the rename but what is the source of the confusion > > with XDL_MERGE_MINIMAL? > > I do not see any confusion, either, but the current XDL_MERGE_DIFF3 > being a boolean But it's not a boolean: git_xmerge_style is currently -1 by default. > (i.e. if false, use the output style of the 'merge' > command) and our lack of an enumeration constant for 'merge' means > that a future addition of the third output style would require us to > add XDL_MERGE_$STYLE for both the new style and the traditional > 'merge' style. And If we would end up with XDL_MERGE_DIFF3, > XDL_MERGE_MERGE and XDL_MERGE_FOO for that third output style. But can you put XDL_MERGE_FOO in xmp.level? Or XDL_MERGE_BAR in xmp.style? > The 'merge' one simply looks strange in that context. And from that > point of view, this change might be a good way to futureproof the > codebase. Yes. -- Felipe Contreras
