Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Johannes Sixt wrote: >> then diff3 must display the conflict as >> >> 12<ABC|34=AXC>56 >> >> to be technically correct. RCS style can coalesce A and C outside of the >> conflict and display it as >> >> 12A<B=X>C34 >> >> and *that* is the helpful part of this simpler style. > > I have trouble translating the above to what I'm familiar with in my > mind, so... > > diff2: > > 1 > 2 > A > <<<<<<< l > B > ======= > X > >>>>>>> r > C > 5 > 6 > > diff3: > > 1 > 2 > <<<<<<< l > A > B > C > ||||||| b > 3 > 4 > ======= > A > X > C > >>>>>>> r > 5 > 6 > > I personally don't mind at all having a few extra lines in order to > visualize what actually happened. Plus a good tool should have an option to quickly show a diff between any 2 of 3 parts, making analysis even simpler. > > But of course there's zdiff3: > > 1 > 2 > A > <<<<<<< l > B > ||||||| b > 3 > 4 > ======= > X > >>>>>>> r > C > 5 > 6 > > Which is the best of both worlds, even if not technically accurate. Yeah, now I see, thank you both for explanations! That said, to me it seems that for any of 3 formats one can find a case where it's better than the other 2. I'm sure I got a few occasions where leaving common part(s) out of conflicts resulted in a confusion and mis-merge. Thanks, -- Sergey Organov
