3 ms·

I’ve always been puzzled by 3-way merge being remotely common. It’s almost “Here’s your latest file on two branches, good luck!” — There is obviously one leg mi

I’ve always been puzzled by 3-way merge being remotely common. It’s almost “Here’s your latest file on two branches, good luck!” — There is obviously one leg missing but dare pointing it to a developer and he will tell you “But we have everything there” and when you draw a graph to explain the conceptual problem, “Ok but in general the two ancestors are common.” A fortnight later, they wreck a merge and they spend their afternoon re-merging conflicts they’ve already had. Such people almost always use the git tools provided in IntelliJ.

pjerem 4y ago
> Such people almost always use the git tools provided in IntelliJ. OTOH, IntelliJ’s "Magic wand" is totally worth the hassle.
WalterGR 4y ago
> but dare pointing it to a developer and he will tell you Sadomasochism runs deep. If you’re not suffering for your craft, you’re not a Real Programmer.
onetom 4y ago
In my experience, ppl who are using command-line git or magit in Emacs are tying a knot on their genitals with trying to merge branches way more often than ppl using IntelliJ. I wouldn't know how to explain what does the magic wand do, but it seems a huge waste of time NOT having it in other merge solutions. I can't remember a case where it the magic wand was causing a semantic error and I'm using it for 7-8 years by now. Mostly in Clojure code though.