From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS53758 23.128.96.0/24 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4346C1F8C6 for ; Sat, 3 Jul 2021 11:36:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230174AbhGCLip (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Jul 2021 07:38:45 -0400 Received: from smtprelay04.ispgateway.de ([80.67.18.16]:34098 "EHLO smtprelay04.ispgateway.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229829AbhGCLin (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Jul 2021 07:38:43 -0400 Received: from [87.152.157.83] (helo=[192.168.2.202]) by smtprelay04.ispgateway.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1lzbbq-0005ch-PJ; Sat, 03 Jul 2021 11:06:46 +0200 Subject: Re: Logical bug during MERGE or REBASE To: skottkuk@wp.pl, git@vger.kernel.org References: <1932019063.20210702192555@wp.pl> From: martin Message-ID: <4bae5d01-fa6d-7216-55cf-fa7003f5c75c@mfriebe.de> Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2021 11:07:25 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1932019063.20210702192555@wp.pl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-GB X-Df-Sender: bWVAbWZyaWViZS5kZQ== Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On 02/07/2021 18:25, skottkuk@wp.pl wrote: > But as for me, it would be logical to consider the construction inside {} as something whole, For git the {} are just text, like anything else in your file. Also, seeing the function as a whole, i.e. always give a conflict for any 2 changes within one function, is not wanted. There a plenty of cases where 2 or more changes within the same (bigger) function are merged together, and expected to be merged. For all else see the reply from Atharva Raykar.