Re: first-class conflicts?

From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
Date: Nov 7, 2023, 00:50 UTC
Message-ID: <ZUmJyFs7z7wdmLVK@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <Gr..Y5kkszDx87g@idiomdrottning.org>

On Mon, Nov 06, 2023 at 10:45:03PM +0000, Sandra Snan wrote:

Show 11 quoted lines

> Randall, thank you for that.
> 
> I just have sometimes wish git could be a little more aware of them beyond
> just storing them with ASCII art in the files themselves (and alerting /
> warning when they happen but I often can't properly see those warnings flash
> by so I end up having to search for the conflict markers manually). So if
> conflicts are a thing that *can* happen, it'd be better if vc could know
> about them which would make some of the rebases simpler as in jj. That
> doesn't mean we wanna adopt the jj workflow of deliberately checking in
> conflicts (not even locally), just be able to deal with them better if it
> does happen.

Well, if you miss them, "git status" does show that there are conflicts:

   Unmerged paths:
     (use "git add <file>..." to mark resolution)
           both modified:   version.h

And if you attempt to commit the merge without resolving the conflicts, git won't let you:

   error: Committing is not possible because you have unmerged files.
   hint: Fix them up in the work tree, and then use 'git add/rm <file>'
   hint: as appropriate to mark resolution and make a commit.

So it's hard to miss the indications of the content conflict, because if you try to commit without resolving them, it's not a warning, it's an outright error.

Cheers,

					- Ted