Re: Rename conflicts in the index

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

Edward Thomson <ethomson@microsoft.com> writes:

> Edward Thomson [ethomson@microsoft.com] wrote:
>> Junio C Hamano [mailto:gister@pobox.com] wrote:
>> >  * Path A may have only stage #1, while path B and C has only stage
>> >    #2 and stage #3 (the user would have to notice these three
>> >    correspond to each other, and resolve manually).
>> >
>> >    You would want to annotate "B at stage #2 seems to have been at A
>> >    in the original" (similarly for C#3) if you choose to do so.
>> 
>> If we're going to make changes to the way conflicts are recorded in the main
>> index, then I would prefer this approach.  It is unambiguous and all data about
>> all sides are recorded, including the names that items had in their respective
>> branches.
>
> Junio, did you have additional thoughts on this?

Not at this moment.

I think we have covered the principles (do not unnecessarily
duplicate information, do not break existing implementations
unnecessarily, etc.) already, and we know how we want to record "one
side renamed A to B, the other side renamed A to C" case, but I do
not think the discussion covered all cases yet.