Re: Re* [PATCH v2] fixup! mergetool: add automerge configuration

Seth House [off-list ref] writes:

On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 03:32:13PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

quoted

So I'd rather see `git mergetool` be turned into a portable C program, or
alternatively using a built-in helper that _is_ written in C, to perform
that desired text munging

I tend to agree. Though my personal preference is Cygwin's (eventual)
approach, I can appreciate the arguments made by the MSYS2 folk. But
setting that aside, IMO, the ideal place to handle this would be the
same place where the conflict markers are written in the first place,
xmerge.c if my limited C literacy is correct.

I don't see a big distinction between writing a single file with
conflict markers and writing two, diff-able files with each "side" of
the conflict -- they're ultimately two different formats for expressing
the same information. That would give us the portability you described
and the (pretty amazing) performance that merge-file already enjoys. :)

I'm more than happy with calling merge-file twice for now. A future
C optimisation, perhaps exposed via merge-file as a new (e.g.)
--write-conflict-files flag, would be even more awesome.

I am OK with that "two merge-file invocations, one with --ours and
then another with --theirs" approach, as I already said in
https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqh7n9aer5.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com/

On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 12:10:17PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

I am OK with that "two merge-file invocations, one with --ours and
then another with --theirs" approach, as I already said in
https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqh7n9aer5.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com/

Sorry if it seemed like I left that thread hanging (busy week). Thanks
for your reply(s). I'm finishing a v10 patchset with that change which
I'll submit to the list for review this week.