Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] diff-merges: improve --diff-merges documentation

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2023 17:24:03 -0700

Elijah Newren <[email-masked]> writes:

>> >> In my opinion, --remerge-diff does this better; wouldn't we want a
>> >> ...
>> > Between -c and --cc, I do not think there is anything that makes us
>> > favor -c over --cc.  While the algorithm to decide which hunks out
>> > of -c's output to omit was being polished, comparison with -c served
>> > a good way to give baseline, but once --cc has become solid, I do
>> > not think I've used -c myself.
>
> Perhaps, then, the user manual should either omit -c, or recommend
> users use --cc instead?

I do not think I'd miss "-c", but I do not know about others.

>> > I personally find that a very trivial merge resolution is far easier
>> > to read with --cc than --remerge-diff, the latter being way too
>> > verbose.
>
> Ah, indeed, for those that know the --cc output format well (it takes
> a bit to figure out for newcomers), your example demonstrates this
> nicely.  Thanks.

Yup.  And newcomers would take a bit to figure out remerge-diff
output, too, so my answers were written from the "nobody will stay
newcomer forever.  now once they get proficient enough, which ones
are good for them" viewpoint.