Re: Sharing a massive distributed merge

Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:

It would be neat if the tree could somehow mark a bit for "this is
unresolved". I guess we could shove it into a mode bit. But that seems
like a waste of a mode bit for this one use case that doesn't come up
all that often, and which doesn't _need_ to represent that information
in-tree. The commit-message solution would work perfectly fine.

Just adding the blob with the whole glory of <<</>>> markers would be
better than recording --ours or --theirs.  Deleting might be a workaround
that would work better in practice as somebody already mentioned, though.

I agree that message is an essential part of the communication medium to
coordinate this kind of workflow.  It is not like the downstream is a dumb
machinery that blindly grab and overlay the partial merge results that can
only read from tree objects and not commit messages.