git还会使用3路合并吗？

[这是樱桃挑选的案例，仅供参考）

当我们在这里输入时， commit 指向 C 和父母的数据指向 B 的数据。对变量 base 的赋值是设置合并基的内容，并且 next -vs - base 是带入的内容。对于樱桃挑选，提交的父项（可能通过 -m 选择）是合并基础。为了回复，提交本身就是合并基础，并且父母（可能从 -m ）可以带入。

获得相同效果的另一种方式（多年前是这样做的，直到最近，我还认为它仍在使用中）是反向应用由 git format-patch 。在这种情况下，构建的基本版本是第二个散列（来自 A..B 部分的 B 部分）一个文本差异）：

reverse_patches 文本转换为一系列补丁，即在从索引行中提取哈希的代码之后，将 A 和 B 部分放入旧的和新的前缀字段中。然后（在 reverse_patches 之后），当实际应用每个补丁时，git使用保存的旧的和新的sha1值来伪造3路合并（如果 git am 给出 - 3way ）。因此，通过反向应用文本补丁，我们将获取新文件作为基准，原始文件作为目标，就像 sequencer.c 代码一样。

When I run git revert, it can happen, that a conflict occurs. Does git rely on the 3-way-merge, as it is depicted in the question merge internals (cf. table below) also for revert?

What is the merge base for a revert? In What are the three files in a 3-way merge for interactive rebasing using git and meld? it is quite clear, but its hard to imagine this for a revert.

(If I want to revert C at the end.)

Yes, there is a base. (Side note: this code has changed a lot since I looked at it years ago. I picked up some of this for my recent cherry-pick answer, which you have linked here.)

Both git cherry-pick and git revert are implemented by the same source files (builtin/revert.c and sequencer.c).

As you say, the tricky part is deciding what to fake up for the merge base. In your example, we're undoing the B-to-C diffs. Here's the actual source code (in sequencer.c), stripped down somewhat:

[this is the cherry-pick case, included just for completeness]

When we enter here, commit points to data for C and parent points to data for B. The assignment to variable base is what sets the merge base, and next-vs-base is what to bring in. For cherry-pick, the commit's parent (possibly chosen via -m) is the merge base. For revert, the commit itself is the merge base and the parent (again possibly from -m) is what-to-bring-in.

The other way to get the same effect (which is how this was done many years ago, and until recently, I thought this was still being used) is to reverse-apply a commit as produced by git format-patch. In this case, the constructed base version is the second hash (the B part from the A..B part of a textual diff):

The reverse_patches function is called after extracting the text into a series of patches, i.e., after the code that extracts the hashes from the index lines, putting the A and B parts into the old and new prefix fields. Then (after reverse_patches), when actually applying each patch, git uses the saved old and new sha1 values to fake a 3-way merge (if git am is given --3way). So by reverse-applying a text patch, we would get the new file as the base and the original as the target, just as with the sequencer.c code.