From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] builtin-rerere: fix conflict markers parsing Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 10:39:23 -0700 Message-ID: <7vy74d4mr8.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <1215434568-30456-1-git-send-email-dkr+ml.git@free.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Olivier Marin , git@vger.kernel.org To: Johannes Schindelin X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Jul 07 19:40:57 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KFuhU-0007Ge-MQ for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Mon, 07 Jul 2008 19:40:33 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754196AbYGGRjf (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Jul 2008 13:39:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754178AbYGGRjf (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Jul 2008 13:39:35 -0400 Received: from a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([207.106.133.19]:60537 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754074AbYGGRje (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Jul 2008 13:39:34 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0144D2E40C; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 13:39:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-77.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4479A2E40A; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 13:39:26 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Johannes Schindelin's message of "Mon, 7 Jul 2008 14:02:20 +0100 (BST)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: A8D7525C-4C4B-11DD-8936-CE28B26B55AE-77302942!a-sasl-fastnet.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Johannes Schindelin writes: > So what about > > <<<<<<< This hunk contains ===== > anythin > ======= > > Hello > ======= > somethin else > >>>>>>> problem! > > > If you fix it, I think you should do it properly, and analyze the index. I do not know offhand if analyzing the index is the right solution, but your point is very valid. You need to know which ====== is the real one to be able to properly flip sides of the conflict. I however think detecting that we have this ambiguous hunk is easy, and punting gracefully and not re-resolving in such a case is million times better than producing random results that the users need to be worried about.