Miklos Vajna <vmiklos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 12:10:55AM +0200, Richard Hartmann <richih.mailinglist@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > all changes were submitted. Of course, I now have a > > file with the conflict markers inlined in my repository. Not > > a good thing, imo. Is there a way to make git block all > > conflicting versions? > > Write a pre-commit hook that checks for conflict markers? The sample pre-commit hook checks for these. Its really hande to have enabled. > > Also, I would be interested in the design decissions > > behind the current behaviour. Any pointers? > > Not sure, but in general blocking conflict markers by default would be a > bad idea IMHO, several markup language (asciidoc, for example) makes use > of the >>>, === and such character sequences. Not only that, but "git commit -a" did exactly what you asked it to do: git add -u git commit and git add -u is basically a faster way to do something like this pseudo-shell: for path in $(git status | grep modified:) do git add $path done and merge conflicts are "resolved" by you running "git add $path" after you have finished fixing that path. Moral of the story is, don't use "git commit -a". Use only "git commit" and stage files individually. That way when you are in a merge conflict you won't be in the habit of writing "git commit -a" and staging everything from the working tree implicitly. -- Shawn. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
