list mirror (unofficial, one of many)
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Alireza <>
Subject: Considering merge --dry-run to foresee conflicts ahead of time
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2021 20:51:45 +0330	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)

I have a half baked alias for this and it proved to be extremely
useful even in this state.

check = "!f() { BRANCH=${1:-HEAD}; BASE=${2:-origin/master}; git
merge-tree $(git merge-base $BRANCH $BASE) $BRANCH $BASE | sed -n
\"/+<<<<<<< .our/,/+>>>>>>> .their/p\"; }; f"

Of course with large conflicts it gets less useful. Getting only file
names from the patch isn't straightforward either.

So my question is what are the downsides to introducing a `merge
--dry-run` option and what would it look like?

             reply	other threads:[~2021-02-17 17:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-02-17 17:21 Alireza [this message]
2021-02-17 18:39 ` Konstantin Tokarev
2021-02-19 22:26 ` brian m. carlson
2021-02-19 23:59   ` Elijah Newren

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

  List information:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='' \ \ \
    --subject='Re: Considering merge --dry-run to foresee conflicts ahead of time' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

Code repositories for project(s) associated with this inbox:

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).