![]() If a file with diff3-style markup is loaded, Atom will recognize it and enhance the overlay interface with additional detail and functionality:Ītom even offers pre-defined resolution options in the overlay's context menu, so that with just one click the user can choose to combine the changes in either order: "Theirs Then Ours", or "Ours Then Theirs". One area where Atom's tool excels, though, is in its support for diff3 style conflict markup. It's rudimentary, but serviceable for minor fixup: When a file with conflict markup is loaded, it will overlay some styling and context options directly onto the text markup. I guess just as a data point, though not a hugely relevant one, Github's Atom text editor provides a conflict-resolution tool integrated into its editor panes. ![]() It's just something that would be Nice To Have™.Ĭloser-consumption avoidance in the Github Atom editor None really, I guess just continue to eat the closer in the merge tool view? It's not the end of the world if nothing changes, which is why I marked this a feature request rather than a bug. It continues to eat the closer of those two changes.įor better management and interleaving of edits during conflict resolution, it would be extremely valuable if Sublime Merge were to take a diff3-style (or perhaps even directly diff3-driven) approach to edit conflicts that avoids eating the closer. Unfortunately, even if a repo is configured for nflictStrategy=diff3, the conflict resolution view of Sublime Merge is unaffected. Upgraded to InstallAnywhere 2010 - improved installers and application launchers. Upgraded to JavaHelp 2 - improved search and performance. Bugs 412-417 fixed (Refer to BugReports on Guiffy's web site for details). Upgraded Quaqua FileChooser for latest Snow Leopard LAF on MacOS X. As I noted, the default conflict strategy applied by git merge will insert conflict markers in exactly the same configuration used by Sublime Merge: There's a fair argument to be made here that this is really Git's problem. Properly managing the conflict requires that blocks of edited lines be kept intact, so that they remain syntactically valid. Pre-resolving only part of these conflicting edits means that if the user were to include both sides' changes in the merge, the result would be a combined file that's missing a closing tag. However, Ritcher makes a very compelling argument for why this is the wrong approach to resolving a conflict like this. ![]() In fact, it's exactly how git merge itself treats the conflict, at least by default (more on that shortly). Since both commits made the same change there (inserted a ), that line is considered pre-resolved. Currently, Sublime Merge will bring up the conflict resolution view like so:Īs you can see, the last line has been trimmed off both sides. When the branches containing these two changes are merged, they will conflict and need to be resolved. ![]() ![]() + ĩ.3 Release Notes: Build 293 - September 1, 2010 + + Upgraded to InstallAnywhere 2010 - improved installers and application launchers. + Upgraded to JavaHelp 2 - improved search and performance. a/ReleaseNotes 9_4.html +++ b/ReleaseNotes 9_4.html -46,6 +46,10 Quaqua FileChooser for latest Snow Leopard LAF on MacOS X. Diff -git a/ReleaseNotes 9_4.html b/ReleaseNotes 9_4.html ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |