Re: Considering merge --dry-run to foresee conflicts ahead of time
- From
- Konstantin Tokarev <annulen@yandex.ru>
- Date
- Feb 17, 2021, 18:39 UTC
- Message-ID
- <526751613587054@mail.yandex.ru>
- In-Reply-To
- <CAD9n_qiN+qXqR79z_4d+_8_mxa9eTFB42sTUT8CTF8=oQArQaA@mail.gmail.com>
17.02.2021, 20:25, "Alireza" <rezaxm@gmail.com>:
Show 14 quoted lines
> I have a half baked alias for this and it proved to be extremely
> useful even in this state.
>
> ```
> check = "!f() { BRANCH=${1:-HEAD}; BASE=${2:-origin/master}; git
> merge-tree $(git merge-base $BRANCH $BASE) $BRANCH $BASE | sed -n
> \"/+<<<<<<< .our/,/+>>>>>>> .their/p\"; }; f"
> ```
>
> Of course with large conflicts it gets less useful. Getting only file
> names from the patch isn't straightforward either.
>
> So my question is what are the downsides to introducing a `merge
> --dry-run` option and what would it look like?As a git user, I would very much welcome this addition, and similar for cherry-pick, provided they don't modify any files in working copy.
-- Regards, Konstantin