[PATCH] Use merge3 for text merging

[Martin Pool]

On 26 Jul 2005, Aaron Bentley <aaron.bentley at utoronto.ca> wrote:
> Robey Pointer wrote:
> > Slightly unrelated, but this is one thing that bugs me a lot about tla:
> > 
> > I'd really like to shout out in favor of some kind of inline conflict 
> > marking, even if it's not ">>>>>>>>".
> 
> bzr already does that.  It uses ">>>>>>>>".  My patch doesn't change that.
> 
> > tla's habit of dropping little 
> > *.orig and *.rej files and making me pick up the pieces is one of my 
> > pet peeves.  I noticed that bzr currently does the same thing  (*.BASE,
> > etc) and am hoping it's just a temporary thing. :)
> 
> No, it's intended to be long term.  Perhaps it could be optional.
> It's intended for handling difficult merge scenarios-- the user can
> invoke tools like meld on the three files to resolve the conflict.  It
> also makes it easy to determine whether a merge operation resulted in
> text conflicts.

I think we should have some kind of ~/.bzr.ini file or
~/.bzr.conf/preferences file saying

  conflict-style = rejects | three-files | conflict-markers

(or perhaps any combination)

> What *I*'d like to do about this is implement 'bzr resolved [--all]', to
> tell bzr that you've resolved the conflict, and it can delete the files.
> What do you think?

That might be good, but deleting them is pretty easy...

> I'd even take it futher, and refuse to commit conflicted files.  But
> people say I'm wierd.

Perhaps a forbidden-files list, similar to ignored files?  This could
have .rej, .BASE, etc and also be customizable.

-- 
Martin