Re: Opinions on changing add/add conflict resolution?

On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 3:26 PM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:

Elijah Newren [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Cool, thanks for the context.  I'm happy to go down this path, but
there is one question I'd like your opinion on: what if the
intermediate content merges have conflicts themselves?  If that
question isn't clear, let me be more precise...

I think you answered this yourself after (re)discovering the virtual
ancestor merge in the recursive strategy, and no longer need my
input here ;-)

The question about what to put into the index was another issue, and
it's good to hear that you seem to approve of my logic on that one.
Thanks.  :-)

However, my question here about what to write to the working tree for
a rename/rename(2to1) conflict in one particular corner case still
remains.  Should a two-way merge be performed even if it may result in
nested sets of conflict markers, or is that a sufficiently bad outcome
for the user that it's the one case we do want to write colliding
files out to different temporary paths?