On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com>wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Thanks for that. Any clue to why Git is having issues here? I would of
> expected zero or a couple of conflicts as there have been no changes done
> to the trunk.
>
> Justin
>
>
Just guessing - I would expect the .gitignores to be different between
develop and master, which could cause the conflicts.

Om


> On 27/07/2013, at 4:03 AM, Dasa Paddock wrote:
>
> > I think this is how you can resolve each of the 137 conflicts based on
> their status.
> >
> > "added by them"
> > $ git add <file>
> >
> > "both deleted" or "deleted by them"
> > $ git rm <file>
> >
> > "both added"
> > $ git checkout --theirs <file>
> > $ git add <file>
> >
> > Hope this helps,
> > --Dasa
> >
> > On Jul 26, 2013, at 9:57 AM, Dasa Paddock <dpadd...@esri.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I'm able to get the merge to master down to 137 conflicts by running
> these commands:
> >>
> >> $ git checkout master
> >> $ git reset --hard    // to get a clean status due to duplicate file
> names in the release branch
> >> $ git config merge.renamelimit 3200   // without this a warning is
> giving that the default value isn't high enough for the number of files
> being merged
> >> $ git merge -s recursive -X theirs release4.10.0    // 'recursive' is
> the default merge strategy and '-X theirs' tells it to automatically
> resolve conflicts by using the version from the release branch
> >>
> >> The remaining 137 conflicts are all of the type "added by them", "both
> added", "both deleted" or "deleted by them". You can see these and which
> files they are using git status.
> >>
> >> --Dasa
> >>
> >> On Jul 25, 2013, at 2:12 AM, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> As I feared there's 1600+ conflicts when merging the
> apache-flex-skd-4.10.0 tag into master.  Can someone who more experience
> with Git lend a hand here - it seems very strange to me that there would be
> any conflicts let alone that number.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Justin
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>

Reply via email to