Junio C Hamano wrote: > A different way to say it is that until we improve the way the > conflicted inner merge is shown, diff3 style is not something we can > recommend to new users as a default, I would think. I am not sure about that. Does anybody know any newcommer that you would recommend diff2 (aka. merge) style to? I wouldn't. Put yourself in front of a class teaching how to resolve conflicts, I wouldn't dream of explaning the particulars of conflict markers, I would just fire up Meld, and show them visually. Conflict markers are not for newcomers anyway, so that is a moot point. Moreover, it is really hard for an expert to put himself in the shoes of a newcomer... We forget how hard it was at the beginning. At least me personally, I remember that long time ago when resolving conflicts I constantly had to find the change from the base to the remote side in order to see what changes I'm trying to merge, and then from the base to the local side to see why they were conflicting. I don't use diff3 because I want to be fancy, I use it because from experience I *need* to see the base more often than not. Plus, I try to follow the principile of eating your own dogfood [1]. If using diff2 is so awful that basically no git experts use it, why are we recommending it? If the purpose of conflict markers is to resolve conflicts **correctly** and preferably in an efficient way, then diff3 is just better. Cheers. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eating_your_own_dog_food -- Felipe Contreras
