Carl Sorensen <c_soren...@byu.edu> writes: > On 5/27/11 7:53 PM, "Carl Sorensen" <c_soren...@byu.edu> wrote: >> On 5/27/11 6:16 AM, "Graham Percival" <gra...@percival-music.ca> wrote: >>> Unfortunately, at the moment this produces a bunch of merge conflicts. >>> Probably nothing serious, but it's an annoyance. Since it's been so >>> long since the last release, I just went ahead and re-created the news >>> announcements (which of course creates another merge conflict). >> >> >> I'll take it on. > > Merge is completed. We have a bunch of duplicate commits, but everything is > merged. > > I'll try to avoid that in the future.
I think that you can specify trivial merge resolutions. That makes git know that something has been "merged" when in fact only the commit DAG has been merged and consequently future cross merges will consider everything dealt with. If you do such a trivial merge, then cherry-pick the additional stuff, then rebase -i the cherry-picks into the trivial merge if you want to in order to have something that is more like a merge, then you should be fine for future merges. Unless your trivial merge omitted crucial things. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
