Re: Request for adding a "clean" merge strategy for a double-commit merge to deal with conflicts separately
- From
- Alireza <rezaxm@gmail.com>
- Date
- Jul 21, 2020, 16:15 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CAD9n_qi=9Dm83g+dJ42m+CJKtjzm7M9_x2cCi5_iHmYr6vDQEA@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqqo8ofgycz.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>
Say I'm merging from upstream with 100 changed files, but I only get two conflicts. If I manually resolve those, the changes I made in the process is actually lost in a large merge diff. What I'm trying to do is to separate those manual changes from anything else that could merge without conflict.
Show 5 quoted lines
> What would the "clean" (by your definition) result have in that > block of contents that actually has a conflict? Do you mean to say > "Pick our version and ignore theirs in the blocks where the changes > conflict"? If so perhaps -Xours merge strategy option that the > recursive backend offers is what you are looking for?
That's actually what I first tried. But when I use -Xours, I can't run `git merge <previous>` again to reproduce those conflicting hunks - because the resulting commit is deemed to be in sync with both parents. As a result, all the upstream changes are now overridden in this side branch.