Re: [PATCH 1/7] [doc] Add new gitmergeconflicts man page

From: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
Date: Sep 30, 2026, 13:19 UTC
Message-ID: <ar0MVRV5X8zgZfLy@pks.im>
In-Reply-To: <ad4853dc36cdb883c9a8dc6bda747a5ea318e7a8.1790261062.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com>

On Thu, Sep 24, 2026 at 02:44:16PM +0000, Julia Evans via GitGitGadget wrote:

Show 24 quoted lines

> diff --git a/Documentation/gitmergeconflicts.adoc b/Documentation/gitmergeconflicts.adoc
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000..612b683e40
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/gitmergeconflicts.adoc
> @@ -0,0 +1,294 @@
> +gitmergeconflicts(7)
> +====================
> +
> +NAME
> +----
> +gitmergeconflicts - Guide to handling merge conflicts
> +
> +
> +SYNOPSIS
> +--------
> +Guide to handling merge conflicts
> +
> +
> +DESCRIPTION
> +-----------
> +
> +Merge conflicts can happen during a `git merge`, `git rebase`, `git
> +cherry-pick`, `git pull`, or `git revert`. All of those commands use

Should all of these be using linkgit:, like for example in linkgit:git-merge[1]?

> +the same merge algorithm, and the process for resolving a merge conflict
> +is always very similar.

There's also git-am(1), but only when adding the "--3way" flag. So maybe it's best to ignore that command indeed.

Show 8 quoted lines

> +The most common ways to handle a merge conflict are:
> +
> +* Resolve the conflict. (see <<resolve,HOW TO RESOLVE A MERGE CONFLICT>>
> +  below for details)
> +* Or stop the operation and return your branch to its original state
> +  with the appropriate `--abort` command, for example `git merge --abort`
> +  or `git rebase --abort`. See <<git_status,EXAMPLE: GIT STATUS OUTPUT>> below
> +  for how to find the command to run.

I wonder whether the explanation should be expanded a bit to briefly explain how Git performs a 3-way merge in the first place. I feel like it's quite important to understand what the three different sides of the merge are to make sense of it.

But I may be too far detached from the "normal" user, so this may only cause more confusion for our users.

Show 6 quoted lines

> +[[markers]]
> +MERGE CONFLICT MARKERS
> +----------------------
> +
> +Merge conflicts happen when both of the sides being merged edit the same
> +area of a file. When this happens, Git will update the conflicted file

I wonder whether we want to use "hunk" instead of "area". It's jargon again, but I have never heard anybody speak about an "area" before myself.

Show 12 quoted lines

> +to include merge conflict markers `<<<<<<<`, `=======`, and `>>>>>>>`.
> +For example, here's a merge conflict where both sides edited a list of
> +fruits in different ways:
> +
> +----
> +FRUITS = [
> +    "apple",
> +<<<<<<< HEAD
> +    "cherry",
> +=======
> +    "banana",
> +>>>>>>> add-fruit

A bit of a tangent, but sometimes I wonder whether we should make the respective commits a bit easier to access. For example, we could put the equivalent of `git rev-parse --reference <commit>` here for each of the sides.

Show 29 quoted lines

> +    "mango",
> +    "orange",
> +]
> +----
> +
> +The code from one side of the merge conflict is between `<<<<<<<` and
> +`=======`, and the code for the other side is between `=======` and
> +`>>>>>>>`. See <<ours,"OURS" AND "THEIRS">> below for a full explanation
> +of which side is which.
> +
> +
> +[[resolve]]
> +HOW TO RESOLVE A MERGE CONFLICT
> +-------------------------------
> +
> +The process for resolving a merge conflict is:
> +
> +1. Run `git status` to get a list of files with merge conflicts
> +2. For each one, find the conflict markers
> +   (the `<<<<<<<`, `=======`, `>>>>>>>`) and edit the code to
> +   fix the conflict
> +3. Run `git add FILENAME` for each file to mark the conflict as resolved
> +4. Run the appropriate `--continue` command to continue the operation
> +   that was interrupted by the conflict, for example `git merge --continue`
> +   or `git rebase --continue`. See <<git_status,EXAMPLE: GIT STATUS OUTPUT>>
> +   below for how to find the command to run.
> ++
> +Note: During a `git merge`, `git commit` and `git merge --continue` do
> +the the same thing.

s/the the/the/

Maybe we should also say "During a conflicted `git merge`.", but maybe that's redundant.

Show 22 quoted lines

> +[[example]]
> +EXAMPLE OF RESOLVING A MERGE CONFLICT
> +-------------------------------------
> +
> +If you see this in your code during a merge conflict:
> +
> +----
> +FRUITS = [
> +    "apple",
> +<<<<<<< HEAD
> +    "cherry",
> +    "mango",
> +=======
> +    "banana",
> +    "mango",
> +>>>>>>> add-fruit
> +    "orange",
> +]
> +----
> +
> +Then you might edit that part of the code like this,
> +which includes the fruits from both sides of the conflict:

I tend to forget that by default, we only render ours/theirs in the conflict. I always feel like that makes it way harder to resolve conflicts as you don't have the context of what the code looked like originally. So I have diff3 configured locally for ages.

Show 22 quoted lines

> +----
> +FRUITS = [
> +    "apple",
> +    "banana",
> +    "cherry",
> +    "mango",
> +    "orange",
> +]
> +----
> +
> +
> +[[tools]]
> +TOOLS FOR HANDLING MERGE CONFLICTS
> +----------------------------------
> +
> +Here are some ways to get extra context while handling a merge conflict:
> +
> +* There are many graphical "merge tools" for Git, which will normally
> +  show you the different versions of the code side by side.
> +  If you have a mergetool configured, `git mergetool` will launch it.
> +  See also `merge.tool` in linkgit:git-config[1] for a list of
> +  the mergetools Git supports.

There's also `git merge-tool --tool-help` to list all available drivers.

[snip]

Show 9 quoted lines

> +[[diff3]]
> +DIFF3 AND ZDIFF3
> +----------------
> +
> +By default, Git doesn't include the original code when formatting
> +a merge conflict. To include the original code, you can set the
> +configuration option `merge.conflictstyle` to `diff3` or `zdiff3`.
> +This extra context can make it much easier to understand what's
> +happening in a merge conflict.

Indeed.

[snip]

Show 15 quoted lines

> +[[ours]]
> +"OURS" AND "THEIRS"
> +-------------------
> +
> +Git refers to the first part of a merge conflict (between `<<<<<<<`
> +and `=======`) as "ours" and the second part (between `=======` and
> +`>>>>>>>`) as "theirs".
> +
> +Normally, "ours" is the commit that was checked out before you started
> +the merge, and "theirs" is the other commit.
> +
> +But when the merge conflict was caused by a `git rebase`, it's the
> +opposite: "theirs" is the commit that was checked out before you started
> +the merge. This is because under the hood, `git rebase main` checks out
> +the `main` commit first before doing the merge operation.

Hmm. This part is a bit confusing to me. "ours" is always the commit that's currently checked out, and "theirs" is always the one that is getting merged into the checked-out commit.

How about a variant of the following instead?

  In a conflict, the side between `<<<<<<<` and `=======` is "ours"
  and the side between `=======` and `>>>>>>>` is "theirs". "Ours" is
  always the side that `HEAD` points to while the merge happens; "theirs"
  is the commit being merged into it.

  For `git merge <other>`, `HEAD` is your current branch, so "ours" is
  your branch and "theirs" is `<other>`.

  For `git rebase <upstream>`, `HEAD` is first moved to `<upstream>` and
  your commits are then replayed on top one at a time. So "ours" is the
  already-rebased history starting at `<upstream>`, and "theirs" is the
  commit from your original branch that is currently being replayed.

Show 6 quoted lines

> +These terms in Git all mean the same thing when dealing with a merge
> +conflict:
> +
> +* "common ancestor", "base", and "stage 1"
> +* "ours", "us", "stage 2", and `HEAD`
> +* "theirs", "them", and "stage 3"

I wouldn't say that "stage N" is equivalent to the respective other terms. These stages rather refer to the different versions of a specific file as recorded in the index, they do not indicate a specific commit. In contrast to that, all the other terms may also indicate a specific version of a file, but may also refer to the commits.

Patrick