On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 11:17 AM Curtin, Eric <Eric.Curtin@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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? I think it could be an interesting feature to add to Git, as I agree that some people often have this kind of issues with conflicts. What could perhaps work is to develop a new command, maybe called `git conflict` with subcommands for example to load, save and maybe push, fetch and resolve partial resolutions of conflicts. The conflicts could perhaps be stored as commits in the "refs/conflicts/" ref namespace.
