[teraflop]

Git has something similar if you turn on the "diff3" conflict style, and I can't for the life of me understand why it's not on by default, because there are many situations where you just don't have enough information to properly resolve a merge without it.

[wscott]

The "diff3" style looks like this:

           <<<<<<< HEAD
                sc = sccs_init(file, INIT_NOCKSUM|INIT_SAVEPROJ, s->proj);
                assert(HASGRAPH(sc));
                sccs_sdelta(sc, sccs_ino(sc), file);
           ||||||| merged common ancestors
                sc = sccs_init(file, INIT_NOCKSUM|INIT_SAVEPROJ, s->proj);
                assert(sc->tree);
                sccs_sdelta(sc, sc->tree, file);
           =======
                sc = sccs_init(file, INIT_NOCKSUM|INIT_SAVEPROJ, p);
                assert(sc->tree);
                sccs_sdelta(sc, sc->tree, file);
           >>>>>>> c4892343......

That contains the same information, but you have to parse it yourself and it is not nearly as fast to see what changed.

However, it is faster to edit since you don't need to remove the diff markers.

[pabs3]

BTW zdiff3 is a newer version of that style that is slightly better than diff3.

[juped]

zdiff3 is NOT "better", it's a matter of personal preference. it moves common lines out of the conflicted hunks, which may be highly confusing. some people use it anyway

[juped]

If you ask on / search the history of the mailing list, you'll see that in complex merges with synthetic intermediate parents it can produce some really gnarly output, which is the main reason why (coupled with git's general conservatism).

[tome]

> turn on "diff3" ... there are many situations where you just don't have enough information to properly resolve a merge without it

That's right. Here's an example I wrote up:

https://stackoverflow.com/a/63739655/997606