Hi Andreas,
Your chances would be higher for a patch to be applied if you gave a
rationale / justification, and if the patch contained comments.
I did my own research and found a rationale — possibly different from
yours. So I added your patch, and this followup. Also, I changed the
words "fix" and "missing" from your ChangeLog entry, since I am not
aware of a formal standard that specifies how a conflict marker should
look like. Again, if you have different knowledge, please share it.
2024-06-24 Bruno Haible <br...@clisp.org>
git-merge-changelog: Improve last commit.
* lib/git-merge-changelog.c (conflict_write): Add comments.
diff --git a/lib/git-merge-changelog.c b/lib/git-merge-changelog.c
index b30045e2aa..3cffe1fd2f 100644
--- a/lib/git-merge-changelog.c
+++ b/lib/git-merge-changelog.c
@@ -962,6 +962,9 @@ conflict_write (FILE *fp, struct conflict *c)
idx_t i;
/* Use the same syntax as git's default merge driver.
+ The spaces after <<<<<<< and >>>>>>> are for compatibility with
+ git/rerere.c, function 'is_cmarker'. Usually they would be followed by
+ branch or version names, but this info is not available to us here.
Don't indent the contents of the entries (with things like ">" or "-"),
otherwise the user needs more textual editing to resolve the conflict. */
fputs ("<<<<<<< \n", fp);
