|
|
|
|
|
|
by coryrc
178 days ago
|
|
|
In practical, large-scale usage, the default merging algorithm works better than the default rebase algorithm. But I did switch teams from using a rebase workflow to a merge workflow and manual conflict resolution needs went way, way down. Obviously there are confounding issues, but that's my experience. If your patches never touch the same files as others, I think it doesn't matter. But, IIRC, if patch A and patch B both touch file F, and the changes in patch A are in context for diffs of patch B, it always fails if patch A changes patch B's context, but since merging incorporates all changes at once, these separate context changes don't apply. It's been a while, but it might be only when you need to manually resolve patch A, then you also have to manually resolve patch B even if you wouldn't have had to touch it in a merge scenario. |
|
|
You're referring to having to do conflict resolution for each commit in the rebase series, as opposed to all at once for a merge. Either way if the upstream has added thousands of commits since the last time, you're in for no fun.
This is a case where Git could be better, but as I responded to u/gioele there exist tools that greatly help with the conflict resolution issue, such as this one that I wrote myself:
https://gist.github.com/nicowilliams/ea2fa2b445c2db50d2ee650...
which basically bisects to find the upstream commit that introduces a conflict with each commit in the rebase series.
This has one major advantage over merge workflow conflict resolution: you get the most post possible context for each manual conflict resolution you have to do! And you still get to have clean, linear history when you're done.