Re: first-class conflicts?

From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
Date: Nov 12, 2023, 15:21 UTC
Message-ID: <20231112152143.GD35991@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqh6ltrs6t.fsf@gitster.g>

On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 10:31:54AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 11 quoted lines

> Correct but with a caveat: it is too easy for lazy folks to
> circumvent the safety by mistake with "commit -a".
> 
> I wonder if it would help users to add a new configuration option
> for those who want to live safer that tells "commit -a" to leave
> unmerged paths alone and require the unmerged paths to be added
> explicitly (which may have to extend to cover things like "add -u"
> and "add .").
> 
> Perhaps not.  I often find myself doing "git add -u" after resolving
> conflicts and re-reading the result, without an explicit pathspec.

Maybe the configuration option would also forbit "git add -u" from adding diffs with conflict markers unless --force is added?

I dunno. I personally wouldn't use it myself, because I've always made a point of running "git diff", or "git status", and almost always, a command like "make -j16 && make -j16 check" (or an aliased equivalent) before commiting a merge.

But that's because I'm a paranoid s.o.b. and in my long career, I've learned is that "you can't be paranoid enough", and "hope is not a strategy". :-)

					- Ted