Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> In my opinion, --remerge-diff does this better; wouldn't we want a >> ... > I personally find that a very trivial merge resolution is far easier > to read with --cc than --remerge-diff, the latter being way too > verbose. > > Also, --cc and -c should work inside a read-only repository where > you only have read access to. If remerge needs to write some > objects to the repository, then you'd need some hack to give a > writable object store overlay via the alternate odb mechanism, or > something, right? Well, the above did not come out as well as I intended, as I forgot to prefix it with something I thought was obvious from what I said in the recent discussion in the earlier iteration of this topic, where I said that it would be "--remerge-diff", if I were to pick an option that is so useful that it deserves short and sweet single letter. Narutally, it came after we gained experience with "--cc", so it would be surprising if it did worse. Just like it is natural to expect that "--cc" would give more useful output than "-m -p" that predates everybody else. In short, I would say "--remerge-diff" would give output that is the easiest to grok among the three modern variants to show the changes a merge introduces. The above two cases, where I said cc does better than remerge-diff, were meant as _exceptions_ for that general sentiment.
