Thanks a lot for your insights! Yes I also very much appreciate that the
extension point is built in such a way that introducing new parameters
is non-breaking.
On 16/01/2024 18:51, Junio C Hamano wrote:
* Whatever letters we choose, they must have mnemonic value that
signals two of them are the both sides of the merge that are
equal participants, and the other one is the old-file, their
common ancestor that plays quite a different from these two in
the merge. I cannot tell which one of the XYZ would be the more
special than other two, which is the primary reason why I do not
know if XYZ is a good idea.
That makes perfect sense. How about:
- %S for the "source" pathname (corresponding to the %O file)
- %X for the first side of the merge (corresponding to the %A file)
- %Y for the second side of the merge (corresponding to the %B file)
Anyway, I'll try to work on a patch: it should be easy to adapt the
letters to any other choice.
Best,
Antonin
