Re: [RFC/PATCH] mergetool: use resolved conflicts in all the views

[Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>]

Johannes Sixt wrote:
> Am 17.12.20 um 06:41 schrieb Felipe Contreras:
> > Seth House wrote:
> >> I appreciate Felipe getting the discussion started.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 02:24:23PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >>> If there is none, then what is the benefit of doing the same thing
> >>> without running 3 checkout-index?
> >>
> >> I wasn't aware of this plubming when I wrote the initial shell-script
> >> version of the technique. This is a much better approach (even *if*
> >> there's a negligible performance penalty). This nicely avoids
> >> UNIX/Windows line-ending surprises, and instead leans on
> >> already-configured Git defaults for those. Plus the non-text files
> >> benefit you mentioned is also huge.
> > 
> > I think you misunderstood.
> > 
> > This command:
> > 
> >   git checkout-index --stage 2 --temp -- poem.txt
> > 
> > Will give you *exactly* the same output as LOCAL.
> > 
> > The context is "git mergetool", not the mergetool itself.
> > 
> >>> as I understand "mergetool" is handed an
> >>> already conflicted state and asked to resolve it, it would not be
> >>> possible without at least looking at the stage #1 to recover the
> >>> base for folks who do not use diff3 style.
> >>
> >> I feel strongly that LOCAL, REMOTE, and BASE should be left intact for
> >> this reason, Also because they aid readers in understanding the
> >> pre-conflicts versions of the file.
> >>
> >> Rather mergetools (that support it) should be given the stage 1-3
> >> versions of the file in addition to the usual, unmodified, above three.
> >> Then each tool can decide whether or how to show each. Some graphical
> >> tools might be able to make effective use of all five (six?).
> > 
> > Except as you stated in your blog post, not a *single* tool does this
> > correctly using LOCAL, REMOTE, and BASE.
> > 
> >  * Araxis: a mess of changes
> >  * Beyond Compare: a mess of changes
> >  * DiffMerge: a mess of changes
> >  * kdiff3: a mess of changes
> >  * Meld: a mess of changes
> >  * Sublime Merge: displays unnecessary changes
> >  * SmartGit: ignores the other files
> >  * Fork: displays unnecessary changes
> >  * P4Merge: displays unnecessary changes
> >  * IntelliJ: a mess of changes
> >  * Tortoise Merge: uncertain
> >  * tkdiff: displays unnecessary changes
> >  * vimdiff: so, so wrong
> >  * vimdiff2: displays unnecessary changes
> >  * diffconflicts: RIGHT!
> > 
> > So all tools would benefit from the patch (except yours).
> > 
> > Which tool would be negatively affected?
> 
> Where's WinMerge in your list?

It's not my list; it's Seth's list.

> I'm mostly using WinMerge these days, and it can do what your patch
> does all by itself.

Really? Because under Wine it doesn't look like it:

 1. Before: https://snipboard.io/8JA5Oz.jpg
 2. After: https://snipboard.io/HUXnOg.jpg

> I don't know, though, whether your patch would have a negative effect
> for WinMerge.

Seems like it has a *positive* effect. Like in all mergetools.

Cheers.

-- 
Felipe Contreras