On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Elijah Newren <new...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> However, my question here about what to write to the working tree for
>> a rename/rename(2to1) conflict in one particular corner case still
>> remains.
>
> Hmph, is it a bad idea to model this after what recursive merge
> strategy does? I think what is written out from that codepath to
> the working tree has the nested conflict markers (with a bit of
> tweak to the marker length, IIRC) in it.
Oh, that's cool; I didn't know that. It looks like that was
introduced in commit d694a17986 ("ll-merge: use a longer conflict
marker for internal merge", 2016-04-14). That seems like a good idea;
I'll go with that. Thanks.
