Re: RE: first-class conflicts?

[Sandra Snan <sandra.snan@idiomdrottning.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1141 bytes --]

Randall, thank you for that.

I did mean of the first type, pure content conflicts (just like the examples 
on that jj page).

I just have sometimes wish git could be a little more aware of them beyond 
just storing them with ASCII art in the files themselves (and alerting / 
warning when they happen but I often can't properly see those warnings flash 
by so I end up having to search for the conflict markers manually). So if 
conflicts are a thing that *can* happen, it'd be better if vc could know 
about them which would make some of the rebases simpler as in jj. That doesn't 
mean we wanna adopt the jj workflow of deliberately checking in conflicts 
(not even locally), just be able to deal with them better if it does happen.

I dunno… and I've really appreciated the naysayers so far, helps me sort 
out my thoughts in this. I personally really prefer the vanilla "explicit 
staging" workflow (with magit) over jj, got, gitless etc. I'm more scared 
of overcommitting by mistake than undercommitting. But this one feature 
seemed to me that it might be really good: just having the vc be aware of 
the conflicts it has created.