Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > It doesn't make sense to display easily-solvable conflicts in the
> > different views of all mergetools.
> >
> > Only the chunks that warrant conflict markers should be displayed.
> >
> > In order to unobtrusively do this, add a new configuration:
> > mergetool.autoMerge.
>
> As pointed out by others, I think it makes more sense to have
> mergetool.$tool.autoMerge, with optionally mergetool.autoMerge
> that can be used as a fallback, and enable it by default. If
> we can make the default of enabling/disabling per tool, that
> would be ideal (see my other reply on how to do these).
I don't think that's the case. There is no tool the user wouldn't want
this enabled on.
> > + git merge-file --diff3 -q -p "$LOCAL" "$BASE" "$REMOTE" >"$DIFF3"
>
> Adding "--marker-size 7" to the command line would make the sed
> scripts below more robust.
Right, althought the user can't configure otherwise, and the default 7,
it can't hurt to add it.
> > + sed -e '/^<<<<<<< /,/^||||||| /d' -e '/^=======\r\?$/,/^>>>>>>> /d' "$DIFF3" >"$BASE"
> > + sed -e '/^||||||| /,/^>>>>>>> /d' -e '/^<<<<<<< /d' "$DIFF3" >"$LOCAL"
> > + sed -e '/^<<<<<<< /,/^=======\r\?$/d' -e '/^>>>>>>> /d' "$DIFF3" >"$REMOTE"
> > + rm -- "$DIFF3"
> > + fi
> > +
> > if test -z "$local_mode" || test -z "$remote_mode"
> > then
> > echo "Deleted merge conflict for '$MERGED':"
> > diff --git a/t/t7610-mergetool.sh b/t/t7610-mergetool.sh
> > index 70afdd06fa..b75c91199b 100755
> > --- a/t/t7610-mergetool.sh
> > +++ b/t/t7610-mergetool.sh
> > @@ -828,4 +828,22 @@ test_expect_success 'mergetool -Oorder-file is honored' '
> > test_cmp expect actual
> > '
> >
> > +test_expect_success 'mergetool automerge' '
> > + test_config mergetool.automerge true &&
> > + test_when_finished "git reset --hard" &&
> > + git checkout -b test${test_count}_b master &&
> > + echo -e "base\n\na" >file1 &&
>
> I think test-lint-shell-syntax should have complained about the use
> of "echo -e" here (that's the reason why I queued the patch in 'seen'
> initially but it does not appear in what finally got pushed out).
>
> You can either use the plain-vanilla
>
> cat >file1 <<-\EOF &&
> ...
> EOF
>
> because there is nothing gained by saving number of lines with
> reduced readability, or can use
>
> test_write_lines >file1 base "" "" a &&
> ...
> test_write_lines >file1 base "" "" c &&
> ...
> test_write_lines >file1 local "" "" b &&
> ...
> test_write_lines >file1 local "" "" c &&
> ...
It's only one "", but OK.
> which would both save number of lines while making it a bit clearer
> which 'line' corresponds to which other 'line' in different
> preparation of the same "file1".
>
> Will expect a reroll. Thanks.
I have the next version ready, I'll wait for feedback from Seth
regarding tools that might want this turned off (which in my opinion are
zero).
Cheers.
--
Felipe Contreras
