> > It's not clear to me exactly what you want. Let's say I have a file > .... I'm afraid I don't fully understand your example lets say git merge foo bar foo bar 1 1 2 8 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 7 lines 6 and 7 are new in foo line 2 has a conflict because the other head has an 8, history wise because of an early merge the other direction and fix, there was the 8 in foo and it was changed to a 2, when I merge back it will overwrite the 8 with a 2. however I need the 8 to be the 8 and the 2 to be the 2. but I want the 6 and 7 in both. conflict would create a conflict such as foo 1 <<<<<< bar 8 ====== 2 >>>>>> foo 3 4 5 6 7 no overwrite would result in file1 looking like this 1 8 3 4 5 6 7 > Did you want conflict markers in the resulting file? If so, what should > the conflict markers look like, since there isn't actually a conflict? if the the remote and local branches are not identical there's a difference which should be able to result in a conflict. for all purposes I'm not sure git couldn't just ignore the history of the files and do a straight head to head merge. the steps you suggest make it more complicated than it needs to be an if done post merge or without merge will probably be need to be done again in a future merge if merging back and forth -- Caleb Cushing -- 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
