> Anyway, sorry my reply wasn't helpful. Good luck. Not at all, I do appreciate all the suggestions, I learned a lot from this thread in general. I think everybody in this thread has been very helpful. This thread has gone a little cold. I did have a think about the sequential vs concurrent resolutions and even had a conversation with one of my colleagues about it. Would it be reasonable if anyone could push a partial resolution but the book stops there (once a user hits a conflict of a conflict is must be solved locally)? I agree it doesn't make sense in most cases to support pushing recursive conflict resolutions (even though the other part of me says if the users wants to go down that path why stop them? You could even have a config setting to allow N levels of conflicts to be pushed, the default setting being exactly the way things are, none or 0!). I know in my project we already "fake" this functionality like pointed out in the first email, it's just unclean the way we do it, leaves broken commits in the repo, you can no longer use difftools, etc. Should I even consider this as a research idea for my thesis? Or another way of wording this is, if someone sent the code to the git maintainers Junio, etc. would it be merged into git? Regards, Eric Curtin Software Engineer Ovens Campus, Cork, Ireland Dell EMC
