From: Alireza <rezaxm@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 16:15:47 GMT
Subject: Re: Request for adding a "clean" merge strategy for a double-commit merge to deal with conflicts separately
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.


> 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.