From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B59A1F404 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 22:56:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932227AbeCMW4n (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Mar 2018 18:56:43 -0400 Received: from mail-pg0-f51.google.com ([74.125.83.51]:33293 "EHLO mail-pg0-f51.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751300AbeCMW4m (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Mar 2018 18:56:42 -0400 Received: by mail-pg0-f51.google.com with SMTP id g12so546361pgs.0 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 15:56:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=cnuL+98TNVyPEzoabWdq3WSvd2QwCxilMgy8pe/3nGI=; b=BWWWwV/w8D9eOg7Y5/RB9jvT0UyFh7cXynxXeYYZp0lThaUaMSajaDDEKPypoDkFbU kVDcaxUCA3PxQr1RirdvMSBpGIhDIfbQihZGVZc8XWWyFUDgXaYjOVy7rAwvMMcD7k9C 27PRiCyMpPSM7dVc4r2WwoQK68fV9Kc+3w6EkS0dxVyCWtx3vQJvbujIr/pYACNhTyak FUJEWmmzRI4HYf7HjxiWA6KP2Cn7LugTvJFoxpJnHLWRZxYGJ1PfKIZ3z5op2r2/8Gqk Ob4CVxn7ivhYAvIdK6wtBh/bzsL546UoGF065nmm2MBWnfvviPlmwLgrwszPmASeSX8B M7VA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=cnuL+98TNVyPEzoabWdq3WSvd2QwCxilMgy8pe/3nGI=; b=cquiFmPKDhgyXbrK5dWO5hmqZKVnRs7xJo7NKL7Fd2Ddv8ZVS3l3z4luOCAEYaaxDp TWtqq7ahOxYWVCk8oS/NpUNKsaXuuWfjVZo4/BsJgdArBFcsrg/EGdrY8HJSjJSlSxeL 7rKeZSH+gkeBgBDXfm30ysaZRcsZEy1UGqQYHgJN48DirnrIOItJjx8TsCpiO192C2Sh OvTxTZcuMOgct1eT1Nd0ru6/ao2rYXzVF9/2LVjtGqTEC0Odh22zVeEVqAbztwleok90 gXXjmvgMa/UGEV/kFse191wFszGl6Melc+Nt6/rudZWZLh+s22GPcvxRY1i5PqM1VRDS eZrQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7FhF4Mrfsr7xx8a+bdqPltVAV7CcMfVGQXo42xDvG2IWwyo8xmo jBNlzfTIOk8WgyNtFNaatdo= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELtadU35qD2XLS0umxzm1WNnJKN7u+Irt5xEd71ToLGIGCUnMsuHlRQnXci/bqHgS7kwZmu8dA== X-Received: by 10.99.124.2 with SMTP id x2mr1852450pgc.262.1520981801922; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 15:56:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aiede.svl.corp.google.com ([2620:0:100e:422:4187:1d6c:d3d6:9ce6]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x84sm2428651pfi.3.2018.03.13.15.56.41 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Tue, 13 Mar 2018 15:56:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 15:56:39 -0700 From: Jonathan Nieder To: Elijah Newren Cc: Junio C Hamano , Git Mailing List Subject: Re: Opinions on changing add/add conflict resolution? Message-ID: <20180313225639.GC147135@aiede.svl.corp.google.com> References: <20180312184734.GA58506@aiede.svl.corp.google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Hi, Elijah Newren wrote: > However, my question here about what to write to the working tree for > a rename/rename(2to1) conflict in one particular corner case still > remains. Should a two-way merge be performed even if it may result in > nested sets of conflict markers, or is that a sufficiently bad outcome > for the user that it's the one case we do want to write colliding > files out to different temporary paths? Nested conflict markers only happen in the conflictstyle=diff3 case, I would think. merge-recursive writes them already. I've often wished that it would use a union merge strategy when building the common ancestor to avoid the nested conflicts that rerere doesn't understand. But anyway, that's an orthogonal issue: in the rename/rename context, it should be fine to write nested conflict markers since that's consistent with what merge-recursive already does. Thanks, Jonathan