Am 12.06.20 um 16:08 schrieb Curtin, Eric: > Sometimes in our private git instance in the company I work for we > merge branches that have been forked for months and there can be > several or more people involved in the conflict resolution. > > At the moment we have two options: > > - One person, a branch manager, solves them by ringing people, > holding meetings, using best judgement, etc. > - Somebody solves the conflicts they are involved with, marks > everything as resolved and pushes (leaving <<< ==== >>>> delimiters > in for unsolved conflicts) for the next person to continue. This sort > of works although you falsely mark everything as resolved, leaving > merge tools useless and many broken, unbuildable commits around in > the branch. Third option: Do not merge the whole branch in one big do-it-all-at-once merge. Instead, pick strategic commits in the history of the branch such that, when you merge them one after the other, each has only conflicts in one particular area or topic, and so can be solved in a reasonable amount of time with reasonable resources. -- Hannes
