Hi all, I have a git usage question about topic branches and conflicts. I maintain a project that I believe follows the standard topic branch model. It has two "version" branches, master and next. When a new feature is introduced, I create a topic branch off of master, commit, and merge the topic into next. Users can check out next to play with all the latest goodies. If a topic branch has problems, I add bugfix commits to it, and re-merge into next. Once it seems stable, I merge it into master. (Branching topic branches from master is necessary in order to be able to merge them into master without pulling everything else that's in next.) So this is nice, because I can pick and choose which features to have in master, more or less independently of each other. The one thing I haven't been able to figure out is this: Sometimes those topic branches are remote branches on someone else's repo. What happens when merging a remote topic branch into next creates a conflict? Ideally I'd like for the topic branch author to deal with resolving the conflict, and leave me to my carefree maintainer existence of eating icecream on the couch. In the no-conflict case, I merge their remote branch directly into my local next. But in the case of conflicts, it seems like me only way to acquire their resolution is to merge their next branch entirely into mine. Is that true? Likewise, what happens when someone sends a patch against master to the mailing list, and applying that patch to next creates a conflict? Is there any way for them to resolve the conflict, and pass that resolution to me? Thanks for any help. -- William <wmorgan-git@xxxxxxxxxxxx> -- 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
