Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by apostacy 2051 days ago
> That example, while technically correct, is a little bit misleading. From a practical point of view, the thing that Pijul/Anu both do is not "automatically resolve conflicts" but rather "allow repo operations to happen even in the presence of conflicts". In Git, if you've got a conflict, Git will require you to fix it before doing anything else. In Pijul or Anu, you can continue applying changes—possibly creating more conflicts!—in a way that's guaranteed to never throw away changes. At the end of that, a human still needs to resolve those merges manually.

I don't think it is really true that git requires you to fix conflicts before continuing. There are strategies that can let you emulate deferred merging. I rarely let merging hold me back.

If I don't have time to merge into master, just do git push server master:synced/master.

1 comments

Git requires you to fix conflicts to continue in that branch, as commits will not have been applied until you resolve them. You can work around that, but the longer you postpone the harder it becomes to resolve them, and the result will depend on the order you decide to merge / rebase everything.