Re: first-class conflicts?

From: Sandra Snan <sandra.snan@idiomdrottning.org>
Date: Nov 7, 2023, 09:16 UTC
Message-ID: <874jhxj531.fsf@ellen.idiomdrottning.org>
In-Reply-To: <CABPp-BH7WBm1j-Ue9oZFjoy6sTcw5B0hz_ndDEtJqvpZF4YF=w@mail.gmail.com>

Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> writes:

> Martin talked about this and other features at Git Merge 2022, a 
> little over a year ago.

That is something I should've checked or searched for before starting this thread, in hindsight. Thank you, Elijah, for letting me know that.

Show 5 quoted lines

> And if we did, it'd solve various issues such as people wanting 
> to be able to stash conflicts, or wanting to be able to 
> partially resolve conflicts and fix it up later, or be able to 
> collaboratively resolve conflicts without having everyone have 
> access to the same checkout.

One feature I would really like and maybe vanilla git can already 
do this today and I just don't know how, but just becoming more 
aware of conflicts, of when there's a conflict in the commit.

> git status would probably need some special warnings or notices, 
> git checkout would probably benefit from additional 
> warnings/notices checks for those cases, git log should probably 
> display conflicted commits differently

That's exactly what I dream of! I wouldn't wanna commit conflicts deliberately, just that I'm paranoid that I might have some failed merges and three way diffs in code that I missed when they flashed by on the screen.

> it'd also be a lot of work

That is for sure. And don't get me wrong, it's not a feature I personally really need or am clamoring for. Thank you so much for the thoughtful explanation.