Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] git-merge.txt: modernize word choice in "True merge" section

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 13:36:06 -0700

"Philippe Blain via GitGitGadget" <[email-masked]> writes:

> From: Philippe Blain <[email-masked]>
>
> The "True merge" section of the 'git merge' documentation mentions that
> in case of conflicts, the conflicted working tree files contain "the
> result of the "merge" program". This probably refers to RCS' 'merge'
> program, which is mentioned further down under "How conflicts are
> presented".
>
> Since it is not clear at that point of the document which program is
> referred to, and since most modern readers probably do not relate to RCS
> anyway, let's just write "the merge operation" instead.

Good.

I suspect that the original refers literally to the RCS's merge
program.  Until caba139d (Use git-merge-file in git-merge-one-file,
too, 2006-12-22) switched to use our poor-man's substitute for
"merge", we used to invoke "merge" for three-way merge.

We no longer do, and a more generic "merge operation" is certainly a
lot more appropriate in today's world.

>     can inspect the stages with `git ls-files -u`).  The working
> -   tree files contain the result of the "merge" program; i.e. 3-way
> +   tree files contain the result of the merge operation; i.e. 3-way
>     merge results with familiar conflict markers `<<<` `===` `>>>`.