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=-2.9 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 8EA061F404 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 22:42:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932565AbeCMWm5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Mar 2018 18:42:57 -0400 Received: from mail-vk0-f54.google.com ([209.85.213.54]:38855 "EHLO mail-vk0-f54.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932360AbeCMWm4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Mar 2018 18:42:56 -0400 Received: by mail-vk0-f54.google.com with SMTP id s1so842413vke.5 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 15:42:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=42g10R6IQZpg6RpML/JshXDxceF2nKLJnjC3x8Zm43g=; b=XZPf8Zc9kR/8xmDzcJX9VPwQ3FwEgKOvc2m4n60rrzCwkHUhYOCBTFotNx7kNQdvOa bzL53Vxjy0Ytl/Ea3sWTFGGspgAgqbAA+7UTNhsOQvKHRh8VWPeBDfuiqC/y2e5qhPiW sdSNH20OS7+/SyL1gz+5B3OkZLsoTHASDbPhmymy+EMxvQm72TlFb0yW/ec3VqJwT9zz 0aXt9dKZKugrY7puq3jfYgfC5dPB1zEveFDo7R0FHxEdwIlSoUNOqMoS+nkHH7f3Z6QO 9qatCrDXHKg+eDxYXXCAW2ODMJaZcYC5z9P3QcM4FT7ISjRCo0E96gD5AaZOWX/nK0kK ph8A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=42g10R6IQZpg6RpML/JshXDxceF2nKLJnjC3x8Zm43g=; b=ERT5ybMSAoCI89nzV53zQe3PdrqIpBCCe3ILV3rwDNMxIdDaZX/1dNSY0bk8DAcBjC /w34xCYkhhXdpq2aYQndv31DZXMRQLCeN/OByM9o5UXc9Wjxf/V0lo17KfwgdJ1Oc0uY 2UslHcK3nCNNuj6aQXo+ZUzwR5fx+Q8zFuE+D+A3/NLd5tc7CZdjQYzDReB1FyzaTAGh /JSTTokIfaOk9g2iebNDGi7R7rcLAxtIroLH33fM3kqcJRtN9dwiyPGKNDKzlhzb8dW+ g0+p/wnP5Z3QrvUN54n6R0/QVjARy65i50QlGbfzfDm3oyBy/wL0hoMCDZqVEovmVYLV PKFg== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7HFeePALmgnU2o8YJZMw0XGEmLvNk57PdZhdFOa0sVbdFHKn88z wCh61Tc4u85sS7qM2Wy2Rh3oweuxecBDiN/DnNI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELvz4LaQk7GNU4LE8/jWRfnqXQrKoQnivKWGVMlxPIn6rQqJieGVsWb2X/i3I9tJSc9gWVJZWKS6CNQJcsXU3Mg= X-Received: by 10.31.182.210 with SMTP id g201mr1594670vkf.187.1520980975655; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 15:42:55 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.176.3.241 with HTTP; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 15:42:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20180312184734.GA58506@aiede.svl.corp.google.com> From: Elijah Newren Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 15:42:54 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Opinions on changing add/add conflict resolution? To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Jonathan Nieder , Git Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 3:26 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Elijah Newren writes: > >> Cool, thanks for the context. I'm happy to go down this path, but >> there is one question I'd like your opinion on: what if the >> intermediate content merges have conflicts themselves? If that >> question isn't clear, let me be more precise... > > I think you answered this yourself after (re)discovering the virtual > ancestor merge in the recursive strategy, and no longer need my > input here ;-) The question about what to put into the index was another issue, and it's good to hear that you seem to approve of my logic on that one. Thanks. :-) 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?