Re: Regarding smerge upper/lower; needs NEWS

[Noam Postavsky]

On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Stefan Monnier
<address@hidden> wrote:
>> @@ -1247,12 +1247,12 @@ smerge-ediff
>>       (upper (generate-new-buffer
>>          (or name-upper
>>                      (concat "*" filename " "
>> -                            (smerge--get-marker smerge-begin-re "UPPER")
>> +                            (smerge--get-marker smerge-begin-re "A")
>>                              "*"))))
>>       (lower (generate-new-buffer
>>           (or name-lower
>>                       (concat "*" filename " "
>> -                             (smerge--get-marker smerge-end-re "LOWER")
>> +                             (smerge--get-marker smerge-end-re "B")
>>                               "*"))))
>>       base)
>>      (with-current-buffer upper
>
>
> Let's not forget that smerge works not only for 2-part conflicts but
> also for 3-part conflicts (which I think are immensely more valuable),
> where the middle one is the "ancestor".  Currently, the names are
> "upper/base/lower", which I find tolerable, but I'm not sure "a/base/b"
> is good enough.
>

I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing. The above only
affects ediff buffer names created from smerge-ediff (C-c ^ E).
Screenshots attached. All for the same contrived conflict created
using the attached 'mk-conflict.sh', the 3way ones are from setting
merge.conflictstyle = diff3 in my git config.

current-master-2way-smerge-ediff.png
Description: PNG image

current-master-3way-smerge-ediff.png
Description: PNG image

with-AB-patch-2way-smerge-ediff.png
Description: PNG image

with-AB-patch-3way-smerge-ediff.png
Description: PNG image

mk-conflict.sh
Description: Bourne shell script