Re: [PATCH 08/12] merge-ort: provide a merge_get_conflicted_files() helper function

Hi Elijah,

On Sat, 29 Jan 2022, Elijah Newren wrote:

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

quoted

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.

But that would break down in case of rename/rename conflicts, right?

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.

Precisely. That's why I would love to have a way to deviate from the
output of `ls-files -u`'s format, and have a reliable way to indicate
stages that belong to the same merge conflict.

Thanks,
Dscho