3 ms·
I tried rerere once and it felt too much like magic to me, i.e. too complicated in a way that I didn't trust. Experience with conflicts has led me to eschew mag
by gruseom 15y ago
I tried rerere once and it felt too much like magic to me, i.e. too complicated in a way that I didn't trust. Experience with conflicts has led me to eschew magic merge tools and rely on the simplest strategies: 1. minimize conflicts; 2. bite the bullet and deal with them manually. (Edit: my question about rerere is: how identical is "identical"? How can I be sure that it will redo what I did before in exactly the way I would do it now? Doesn't it have to understand my intent to achieve that?)
The diligent-rebasing-along-the-way workflow I proposed is all about #1. You still have to deal with intermediate conflicts this way too, but at least they're minimized. If something you commit to master conflicts with my B49, I have to fix B1..B49 but at least I can write B50..B100 in a way that takes your work into account.
- js2 15y agoThere is nothing really magic about rerere. During a merge, it records each conflict. When you commit the merge, it records your resolution of the conflict. If that _identical_ conflict occurs again, it re-applies the same resolution. You can choose whether it marks the the file as resolved or not, which allows you to easily review what was done before committing the merge.