On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 12:23 AM Johannes Sixt [off-list ref] wrote:

Just a heckling from the peanut gallery...

Am 29.01.22 um 07:08 schrieb Elijah Newren:

quoted

On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 8:55 AM Johannes Schindelin
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Meaning: Even if stage 3 is missing from the first conflict and stage 1 is
missing from the second conflict, in the output we would see stages 1, 2,
2, 3, i.e. a duplicate stage 2, signifying that we're talking about two
different conflicts.

I don't understand why you're fixating on the stage here.  Why would
you want to group all the stage 2s together, count them up, and then
determine there are N conflicting files because there are N stage 2's?

Looks like you are misunderstanding Dscho's point: When you have two
conflicts, the first with stages 1 and 2, the second with stages 2 and
3, then the 2s occur lumped together when the 4 lines are printed in a
row, and that is the cue to the parser where the new conflict begins.
Dscho did not mean that all N 2s of should be listed together.

Ah, so...I didn't understand his misunderstanding?  Using stages as a
cue to the parser where the new conflict begins is broken; you should
instead check for when the filename listed on a line does not match
the filename on the previous line.  In particular, if one conflict has
stages 1 and 2, and the next conflict has only stage 3, then looking
at stages only might cause you to accidentally lump unrelated
conflicts together.