Jean-Noël AVILA <jn.avila@xxxxxxx> writes: > OK, I'm not fond of my solution either, but I strongly dislike mixing synonyms > (which is the usual meaning of putting several options in the same > description) with incompatible behavioral alternatives. But, for this one, > let's consider that the alternatives are just like `--[no-]bla` option > descriptions, for the sake of ending this PR. Makes sense. In this case, not like "--[no-]blah" whose description has to discuss two options with opposite meaning, we need to describe three choices. > I would still rephrase the description to make it clear, how the alternatives > are working: Absolutely. > > `-1`:: > `--base`:: > `-2`:: > `--ours`:: > `-3`:: > `--theirs`:: > Compare the working tree with > + > -- > * the "base" version (stage #1) when using `-1` or `--base`, > * "our branch" (stage #2) when using `-2` or `--ours`, or > * "their branch" (stage #3) when using `-3` or `--theirs`. > -- > + > The index contains these stages only for unmerged entries i.e. > while resolving conflicts. See linkgit:git-read-tree[1] > section "3-Way Merge" for detailed information. OK. Thanks.
