Re: Regarding smerge upper/lower; needs NEWS

[Richard Copley <rcopley@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1344 bytes --]

On 13 April 2017 at 20:34, Stephan Mueller <Stephan.Mueller@microsoft.com>
wrote:

> Ack, I write gibberish for no good reason.  Please ignore me.  Sorry for
> the noise.
>
> stephan();
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephan Mueller
> Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 11:56 AM
> To: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Subject: RE: Regarding smerge upper/lower; needs NEWS
>
> Stefan wrote:
>
> " 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),
>
> Agreed on the higher value of handling 3-part conflicts.
>
> " 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 the name 'upper' adds anything if it's displayed in the upper
> pane, which suggests to me that 'a' is no worse.   (And if 'upper' is
> displayed
> anywhere else, it's causing confusion.
>
> stephan();
>
>
>
Glenn, Kaushal,

"A" and "B" are the names diff3 uses for the conflict markers.
"A" and "B" are the names used in the documentation.
"UPPER" and "LOWER" are useless since they don't match up with anything
else (the conflict markers and the documentation).
"UPPER" and "LOWER" are confusing since they are often shown on the left
and right respectively.

Why is this change good? What am I missing?

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2204 bytes --]