|
|
|
|
|
by steveklabnik
201 days ago
|
|
It’s not any different than git, the only difference is that you can choose to resolve the conflict when you want, instead of it interrupting rebase. If you don’t want to modify a branch, then you shouldn’t rebase it, same as git. |
|
What does it even mean to not resolve conflicts? Your branch code and/or history is broken until you come around and fix it? If so, forcing you to fix it immediately is better. Aside from the practical implications of deferring conflict resolution, I just can't think of a reason I would do it in the first place. If a branch can't be rebased with zero work, and I don't have time to do that work, I just don't do the rebase.