On 12/18/2012 08:13 PM, Kai Willadsen wrote:
Sorry, but I'm pretty opposed to opening auto-merge by default for
conflicts. What I expect to see when I open a conflict is MERGED, not
BASE, and we can't guarantee that the result of our merge will be
anything like MERGED.
Since the auto-merge code does similar job to most VCSs when
it comes to merging 2 files with common ancestor the result
should be pretty much the same as MERGED.
Personally, I do not really care if the result of the merge
presented
by the UI is exactly the same as MERGED as long as the result is
reasonable
and the UI allows me to resolve the conflicts easily.
TortoiseSVN opens conflict solver automatically for conflicts
and I must admit it is
a quite useful feature. But it's just my opinion :)
As an aside (that's even more work), it would be extra awesome to
support diff3-style conflict markers, so that when we get conflicts,
we don't show the useless left/right conflict portions, but show the
ancestor portion of the file in that position.
Well, that's exactly what auto-merge does.
I am afraid that trying to parse markers in MERGED and replacing
conflicts with proper chunks from BASE instead might lead to
some errors as it is not always obvious which chunk to use.
Cheers,
Piotr
