Comment by steveklabnik
2 months ago
jj doesn't force you to resolve the conflicts immediately, so it'll just show that they're conflicted until you decide you want to go fix them.
2 months ago
jj doesn't force you to resolve the conflicts immediately, so it'll just show that they're conflicted until you decide you want to go fix them.
That sounds real painful and confusing. You could end up with a bunch of conflicts in separate commits, on multiple branches, none of which you actually wanted to modify in the first place.
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.
Someone just told me that if you rewrite a commit that is an ancestor of multiple branches, it will (or can) automatically rewrite all the branches.
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.
1 reply →