First here's a summary of what I setup for a small team: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/14865283/proper-git-workflow-scheme-with-multiple-developers-working-on-same-task/41753291#41753291
You say "big merge" and "lots of conflicts" I wonder why this is happening? Tell me what do you mean by a "big merge" and what do you consider "lots of conflicts"? Ideally the more frequently you merge the smaller will be the scale of any conflicts. What do branches represent in your situation? are they representing projects or bug fixes etc? do multiple developers work on a branch or just single developers? On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 3:17:11 PM UTC-7, Stephen Morton wrote: > > I'm looking for a git branching and merge strategy for merge with lots of > conflicts requiring multiple people. I can make it work, and I understand > git, but it all seems kind of awkward and it feels like there must be a > better way. > > I've got a big git merge to do. There are lots of conflicts and it > requires many people to resolve them all. > > The only way to handle this in git, AFAIK, is to start the merge and then > just commit all files with conflicts in them and then let different people > work on the different conflicts, committing them as they go. That is great > for resolving the conflicts. In the diagram below, branchA is merged into > branchB with merge commit M. The code in the repo at M is full of > conflicts. Many of the conflicts in the merge are actually resolved in > commits x, y, z. > > o---o---o---o---- branchA > \ \ > \-o---o-M---x---y---z branchB > > > But I worry that the above strategy is not good for git's merge tracking > and future merges. Because if we do a 'git checkout branchA; git merge > branchB`, git will erroneously try to merge x,y,z into branchA. > > I *could *create branchB2 where I re-do the original merge but then just `git > checkout z -- . ` and commit that as the merge commit. That would work > well for the git merge tracking. Then I would keep branchB just as > historical reference for "who fixed what conflict and why" during the merge. > > > The above would all work, but it seems so un-git-like. It feels like there > must be a much better and established practice, yet I have not found > anything online. Is there a better way to do this? > > Thanks, > Steve > > p.s. I'm aware of answers like "Your workflow is broken, with git you > merge often and therefore never have lots of conflicts." It's just too long > a discussion to argue that point, so let's just avoid it, ok. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git for human beings" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
