merge-conflicts | Welcome to your repository for your GitHub Learning Lab | Learning library

by hpdang HTML Version: Current License: MIT

X-Ray Key Features Code Snippets(1)Community Discussions(10)Vulnerabilities Install Support

kandi X-RAY | merge-conflicts Summary

merge-conflicts is a HTML library typically used in Tutorial, Learning applications. merge-conflicts has no bugs, it has no vulnerabilities, it has a Permissive License and it has low support. You can download it from GitHub.

Welcome to your repository for your GitHub Learning Lab course. This repository will be used during the different activities that I will be guiding you through. Oh! I haven't introduced myself... I'm the GitHub Learning Lab bot and I'm here to help guide you in your journey to learn and master the various topics covered in this course. I will be using Issue and Pull Request comments to communicate with you. In fact, I already added an issue for you to check out.

Support

Quality

Security

License

Reuse

Support

merge-conflicts has a low active ecosystem.

It has 142 star(s) with 0 fork(s). There are 2 watchers for this library.

It had no major release in the last 6 months.

merge-conflicts has no issues reported. There are 6 open pull requests and 0 closed requests.

It has a neutral sentiment in the developer community.

The latest version of merge-conflicts is current.

Quality

merge-conflicts has no bugs reported.

Security

merge-conflicts has no vulnerabilities reported, and its dependent libraries have no vulnerabilities reported.

License

merge-conflicts is licensed under the MIT License. This license is Permissive.

Permissive licenses have the least restrictions, and you can use them in most projects.

Reuse

merge-conflicts releases are not available. You will need to build from source code and install.

Top functions reviewed by kandi - BETA

kandi's functional review helps you automatically verify the functionalities of the libraries and avoid rework.
Currently covering the most popular Java, JavaScript and Python libraries. See a Sample of merge-conflicts

Get all kandi verified functions for this library.

merge-conflicts Key Features

No Key Features are available at this moment for merge-conflicts.

merge-conflicts Examples and Code Snippets

Merges two shards .

python

Lines of Code : 14

License : Non-SPDX (Apache License 2.0)

Copy

def merge(self, other):
    """Merges the policy of another policy into the current policy.

    Args:
      other: The policy to merge into this one.

    Raises:
      ValueError: If this policy has been frozen and the merge conflicts with
      th

Community Discussions

Trending Discussions on merge-conflicts

How are merge conflicts are created?

What does git stash apply (or pop) have to do with index (staging area)?

git pull broke something - how to go back to previous working commit and merge the remote changes in again?

Determine which commits will cause conflicts

Is it possible in Git to work on the same sub-branch in perpetuity?

Why do I get git merge conflicts?

How to automate feature branch merge on to develop?

How can I successfully change my default mergetool utility to opendiff

Resolving a merge conflict on GitHub

git: Resolve merge conflicts using strategy

QUESTION

How are merge conflicts are created?

Asked 2021-Jan-22 at 19:45

For educational (Q.A.) purposes, I'm creating a series of git coding exercises that force students to create a merge conflicts in different ways and practice solving them.

I'm wondering if there are other ways common, or even uncommon ways such as working stash, locked files, etc.

Similar Resources (not duplicates):

...

ANSWER

Answered 2021-Jan-22 at 19:45

One way to automate this is with bash:

Source https://stackoverflow.com/questions/65836925

QUESTION

What does git stash apply (or pop) have to do with index (staging area)?

Asked 2021-Jan-12 at 22:49

echo "a" > file1.txt
git add file1.txt
git commit -m "add file1"

echo "b" > file1.txt
git stash

...

ANSWER

Answered 2021-Jan-12 at 22:49

A stash stores both the state of the index and the state of the working tree, because those are both things you might have in an incoherent or unfinished state. Making a stash puts both the index and the work area into commits and rolls both back to the head commit state; the index commit then has the current head as parent, and the work tree commit has the index commit and the current head as parents, making the stash’s content a merge commit. You can actually see this structure by doing a git log on your stash entry (your identifier numbers will be different of course):

Source https://stackoverflow.com/questions/65692555

QUESTION

git pull broke something - how to go back to previous working commit and merge the remote changes in again?

Asked 2020-Dec-21 at 11:33

I commited a new feature locally, pulled from remote and got merge conflicts. After resolving them, my feature stopped working (seems like I made an error).

My idea was to go back to my commit and somehow repeat the merge. I checked out my commit, made a new branch, checked out master and tried to merge the new branch into master. This didn't work because "Everything is up to date".

How do I best handle this if I don't want to fix the error by looking through the code by hand?

/edit: I accepted the correct answer to the question but it turns out that my problem has a different origin than assumed above. I asked a follow-up question here.

...

ANSWER

Answered 2020-Dec-21 at 08:27

If you do the checkout of your commit after the first merge to master, you will get an "Everything is up to date" when merging from master.

Source https://stackoverflow.com/questions/65384476

QUESTION

Determine which commits will cause conflicts

Asked 2020-May-21 at 01:02

I'm merging branches. Some commits on the from branch will cause merge conflicts, and others won't. I'd like to know which will cause conflicts*, so I can decide what point to merge to. For example, something like:

...

ANSWER

Answered 2020-May-21 at 01:02

Git doesn't let you perform a merge without having a working tree, so if you want to merge two branches, you need to check one of them out and merge the other. There isn't a tool to check just for merge conflicts, and with the state of Git now, it would be a little tricky to add that functionality. If you want to use Git, you can do this:

Source https://stackoverflow.com/questions/61924815

QUESTION

Is it possible in Git to work on the same sub-branch in perpetuity?

Asked 2019-Nov-14 at 17:10

High-Level Background:

My workplace has been around for decades and many of the employees here likewise. I joined earlier this year but have plenty of experience elsewhere.

I taught myself Git in my first job way back when, which was essentially a 2-man project. I screwed up many things and practiced many things, so I come from the school of hard knocks. As I wrote in an email to some of the department heads

[…] I am not a git expert. For better or worse, though, in this company I am :\ […]

We just switched to Git/Bitbucket from a more antiquated source control (one that locked files, copied files, etc). Most people (and old-timers) are acclimating to the new protocols and I and a few others are helping where we can.

The Guy I am Dealing With:

There's one dude, an older guy, who is a curmudgeon. I get along well with him but he's a tough nut to crack. he doesn't want to learn new things, he wants it to be simple. This is not a dumb guy, btw, he has been programming in C++ since it was released and, among other things, he wrote the driver we use to connect to our DB from our product (from scratch). A lot of the code he works on is his own stuff, essentially libraries that other departments use, although enough of his work is within shared code files that others modify as well.

He's accepted that I know what I'm talking about but he's an old dog; the concept of Git being "diff"-based vs actual file has usage scenarios he doesn't want learn, like creating new branches. He wants a simple procedure.

In my defense, I am a pretty good teacher. I have worked with a number of the other employees and they seem to get it now and are firing away at their code using Git/Bitbucket.

What He Wants:

Back to the curmudgeon, he wants ONE branch to work on. He doesn't want to checkout new branches, switch branches, he doesn't want to know about branches. He wants that he does his work, commits, does a pull request, and continues his work.

This is just one guy, most people in the company are willing to change. I have sat with him for probably around 5-6 hours in total over the last week. I enjoy it because we respect each other, and I also consider it my company duty as I am the best equipped here to do that (many find him tough to talk to so he kinda works in his own bubble, plus not many here have the comfort level with Git that I do). Additionally, he has wrapped his mind around some of the core fundamentals of Git, like staging, local vs remote, etc.

Although not ideal, would it be a "good enough" workaround if every so often, he merges from the master branch into his own and just works on his one branch for the foreseeable future? Hopefully I can incrementally get him to be a good "Gitizen" over time. At worst, the guy's likely to retire in a few years.

Is this workaround a ticking time bomb? Will it screw up the master-branch's history (this is assuming all merge-conflicts are resolved correctly; something not a problem for him)?

...

ANSWER

Answered 2019-Nov-14 at 17:08

It depends, assuming his branch would be "master" (otherwise someone else merging his branch will have headaches)

he can pull/merge and commit+push his changes easily
he will have a hard time working on multiple issues over a period of time. Assuming since he doesn't like branches, he won't be using stashes either (though he could invest a lot of time and work with diff/patch-files and keep all of them up to date) ** very hard to keep multiple versions of the same file updated with changes from upstream without "branches and merge only at end"
it will be difficult to work with him together on a feature branch, sending patches to and fro by email?
if there are other devs working with feature branches, his changes won't be visible as nicely in gitk as fine parallel lines with all the commits, instead he'll be on master only

It certainly would work, but with a toll. Different workflows for same project, more difficult analysing of features afterwards, some harder to track merge errors (yes they will happen, regardless on how diligent the dev is).

I'm sure the C++ guy with decades of experience knows his stuff and his tools almost work in magic harmony with his fingertips. So from his point of view, git is not helping him to perform better but is a hindrance. Only helpful for people with less knowhow than him, forcing the pro to change the almost perfect workflow for people who are not anywhere near it. It could be helful to remind him and yourself that you are not trying to help him, but need his help for the team/company/project as a whole.

Bottomline is, depending on amount of devs, frequency of changes, probability of parallel work on different features it's either almost impossible or a lot of time wasted which instead could have been put in new features.

Source https://stackoverflow.com/questions/58822714

QUESTION

Why do I get git merge conflicts?

Asked 2019-Apr-11 at 15:27

I've encountered a situation related to git and Bitbucket which I don't understand.

I created a branch branchB that originated from master. I made some commits and created a pull request to master. While this pull request was being reviewed, I started to work on another feature which was an extension of the feature from branchB. So I created another branch (branchC) that originated from branchB. When my extended feature was ready, I created a pull request to branchB. See the Picture I. I didn't have any merge conflicts at the time.

I wanted to allow the reviewers to have a look at both pull requests separately and have separate pull requests with smaller changes.

My plan was the following:

merge the pull request 1 (PR1) to master using the --squash option
change the target branch in the pull request 2 (PR2) to master (See the Picture 2)
merge the pull request 2 (PR2) to master

However, when I merge the pull request 1 (PR1) to master using the --squash option, Bitbucket automatically changed the target branch of the pull request 2 (PR2) to master and I got some conflicts in the pull request 2 (PR2).

So I resolved the conflicts:

git checkout master
git pull
git checkout branchC
git rebase master
git mergetool
I resolved all conflicts here.
git rebase --continue

Actually, the described problem happened to me twice, since I also had branchD originating from branchC. When I merged branchB into master, I had to resolve some conflicts in the step 6. However, when I merged branchC into master, I didn't have to resolve any conflicts manually in the step 6 (even though Bitbucket showed me merge conflicts, so I had to rebase branchC).

Mu questions are the following:

Why did Bitbucket show me any merge conflicts for PR2 when I merged PR1 to master using the --squash option? I'd expect it to figure out that the change between pictures I and II is only in commit ids - the code is hasn't changed. Git/Butbucket should be able to figure out which changes I want to make.
Why didn't I get any conflicts that should be resolved manually when I was rebasing branchD into master (after I merged branch C into master)? Since Bitbucket couldn't merge my pull request, I'd expect that I'd need to resolve some conflicts manually. Can it be related to git version on my desktop and on Bitbucket?
Did I have any better option than creating these three pull requests in my case? Could I have avoided these merge conflicts?

Additional information:

git version on my desktop: 2.17.1.windows.2
Bitbucket version: v5.12.2
git version on the Bitbucket server: 2.14.5
I looked for similar questions (1, 2, 3). None of them deals with my problem.

I'd appreciate any explanation of this phenomena.

Edit: 1. I merged all my pull requests using the --squash option. 2. I updated the picture to show that branchB and branchC do not start with commits B1 and C1, respectively.

...

ANSWER

Answered 2019-Apr-10 at 19:33

If I understand You situation correctly. The problem was this --squash. Here is the topic that explains how are the merges done in GIT How does git know which version of a line to keep?.

When You merged with --squash, since git commits are actually immutable, You have created a new squashed commit with new ID. When You wanted to merge PR2 back to master, the file contents were changed in both places. For branchB there was a number of commits with some IDs and for master there was only one commit that had a different ID and some files were changed on both branches, so basically git has no idea which version is correct. This is why there were no conflicts in case of branchC, because the history of commits was the same for branchB and branchC (no --squash done here).

Source https://stackoverflow.com/questions/55619259

QUESTION

How to automate feature branch merge on to develop?

Asked 2019-Mar-12 at 11:13

Using WebStorm IDE and typical gitflow. Day by day I am do same operations after work on feature is finished:

Push feature branch to remote
Checkout branch develop
Pull develop updates from remote
Merge feature branch to develop
Stop in case of any merge-conflicts. Manually resolve conflicts.
Push develop to remote

Are there any plugins to automate this simple actions (except #5) by one button?

...

ANSWER

Answered 2019-Mar-12 at 05:46

"One button": you would need to record a macro and bind a keyboard shortcut to said macro.

But that would not take into account the comment you need to enter when merging, or the potential conflict resolution.

You could also write a script, and declaring it as an external tool.
In that script, the merge step would stop if there is conflict.

Source https://stackoverflow.com/questions/55114519

QUESTION

How can I successfully change my default mergetool utility to opendiff

Asked 2019-Mar-08 at 22:34

I initially did the commands mentioned in How to resolve merge conflicts in Git

I did:

...

ANSWER

Answered 2019-Mar-08 at 22:34

Source https://stackoverflow.com/questions/55071096

QUESTION

Resolving a merge conflict on GitHub

Asked 2018-Nov-16 at 14:37

The goal: Merge changes in develop from feature branch.

Easy enough, but the merge has conflicts. I used the conflict resolution tool on github. I resolved the conflicts. I got a warning that this would change develop. Nope. Do not want. Abort.

Research:

Started here: https://help.github.com/articles/about-merge-conflicts/

Read this: If your merge conflict is caused by competing line changes, such as when people make different changes to the same line of the same file on different branches in your Git repository, you can resolve it on GitHub using the conflict editor. For more information, see "Resolving a merge conflict on GitHub."

Lead here: https://help.github.com/articles/resolving-a-merge-conflict-on-github/

Read this: Warning: When you resolve a merge conflict on GitHub, the entire base branch of your pull request is merged into the head branch, even if the head branch is the default branch of your repository, like master, or a protected branch. Make sure you really want to commit to this branch.

What if you don't?

I want to resolve the conflict into my feature branch without altering the develop branch in any way.

How?

If I wanted to alter develop I would be merging in the other direction.

...

ANSWER

Answered 2018-Nov-16 at 14:37

Seems it isn't possible. It is quite clear that merging A into B on github will result in changes to A if there are merge conflicts. This makes absolutely no sense to me but is clearly documented.

The merge was done locally.

Source https://stackoverflow.com/questions/53308827

QUESTION

git: Resolve merge conflicts using strategy

Asked 2018-Jul-03 at 14:13

Scenario:

attempt a merge from branch feature into master
witness minor conflicts, e.g. a different version number, that should not be merged

How can you tell git to merge only non-conflicting parts and don't touch conflicting ones, just like when running git merge -s recursive -Xours feature?

My current solution is to run git merge --abort, followed by the above mentioned strategy-merge. Is there a way to do this without first aborting my merge? I do not want to fire up another tool or work through every conflict one-by-one.

Neither the git docs on merging nor this SO thread give any advice.

...

ANSWER

Answered 2018-Jul-03 at 14:13

You will still have to work through every file one by one, but you can use git merge-file to achieve what you want. You may wish to write a script to accomplish the steps below.

When Git stops with a merge conflict, Git leaves all three versions of the conflicted file in the index / staging-area. Let's say, for instance, that the conflicted file is named README.txt. Then because there was a conflict, you have a README.txt in your work-tree with conflict markers, but you also have:

:1:README.txt: the README.txt from the merge base (the common commit from which both your current commit, and your merge target commit, diverged).
:2:README.txt: the README.txt from the HEAD or --ours commit.
:3:README.txt: the README.txt from the --theirs commit.

You can extract each of these three files to a temporary file. The most straightforward way is to use git show :1:README.txt > README.txt.base, for instance. There is a fancier way that is more suitable for scripting—the git mergetool command uses this:

Source https://stackoverflow.com/questions/51150649

Community Discussions, Code Snippets contain sources that include Stack Exchange Network

Vulnerabilities

No vulnerabilities reported

Install merge-conflicts

You can download it from GitHub.

Support

For any new features, suggestions and bugs create an issue on GitHub. If you have any questions check and ask questions on community page Stack Overflow .

Find more information at: