> "ORIG_HEAD...MERGE_HEAD" diffs to see what was going on. I could use an
> external diff tool (yuck), but I would like to modify the conflict markers
> to resemble those of Perforce:
>>>>>>>> merge-base:file.txt
> Original code.
> ======= HEAD:file.txt
> Head code.
> ======= merge:file.txt
> Merged code.
> <<<<<<<
Having such 3-parts conflicts helps tremendously when you have to do
the merge by hand, so I'm 100% in favor of such a change.
BUT Please, please, pretty please, don't follow Perforce who blindly
disregards previous standards. Instead use the format used by diff3
which has been there for ages:
<<<<<<< foo
original text
||||||| bar
ancestor
=======
new text
>>>>>>> baz
> Third, git doesn't appear to have any sense of context when performing a
> merge. Another contrived example which wouldn't be flagged as a merge
> conflict:
> ptr = malloc(len); // Added in HEAD.
> init(); // Included in merge-base.
> ptr = malloc(len); // Added in "merge".
Yes, that's nasty.
> Fourth, git doesn't provide a mechanism for merges to ignore whitespace
> changes.
I can live with that. As long as the conflict is clearly marked with
all 3 parts, I can use any external tool I want to resolve the conflict.
Stefan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
