Re: [PATCH v4 1/6] doc: add new gitmergeconflicts man page

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

"Julia Evans" <julia@jvns.ca> writes:

>> The value I wanted to bring on the table was to point out that the
>> changes are not just "one side did something", but "one side did
>> something where the other side had no opinion on (hence it didn't do
>> anything)".  It is the basis of how 3-way merge works and helps to
>> resolve the example for removal of both.
>
> Oh, I see.  This is such a simple example that IMO trying to explain
> in more detail exactly "why" the resolution is correct risks confusing
> people. My goal with saying "one side removed 'banana'" is just
> to give an example of how to read what the merge conflict above is
> saying, since the syntax might be new to people.

OK.  Other than that, I do not think anybody saw an issue in this
iteration, and I suspect that we are reaching the point of diminishing
returns.  Let me mark the topic as ready for 'next'.

THanks.