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
