Skip to content

Commit

Permalink
Tutorial: do not use 'git resolve'.
Browse files Browse the repository at this point in the history
Use 'git merge' instead.

Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
  • Loading branch information
Junio C Hamano committed Nov 8, 2005
1 parent fb612d5 commit 067744b
Showing 1 changed file with 8 additions and 7 deletions.
15 changes: 8 additions & 7 deletions Documentation/tutorial.txt
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -965,9 +965,9 @@ Merging external work
It's usually much more common that you merge with somebody else than
merging with your own branches, so it's worth pointing out that git
makes that very easy too, and in fact, it's not that different from
doing a `git resolve`. In fact, a remote merge ends up being nothing
doing a `git merge`. In fact, a remote merge ends up being nothing
more than "fetch the work from a remote repository into a temporary tag"
followed by a `git resolve`.
followed by a `git merge`.

Fetching from a remote repository is done by, unsurprisingly,
`git fetch`:
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -1206,7 +1206,8 @@ In our example of only two files, we did not have unchanged
files so only 'example' resulted in collapsing, but in real-life
large projects, only small number of files change in one commit,
and this 'collapsing' tends to trivially merge most of the paths
fairly quickly, leaving only the real changes in non-zero stages.
fairly quickly, leaving only a handful the real changes in non-zero
stages.

To look at only non-zero stages, use `\--unmerged` flag:

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -1615,8 +1616,8 @@ in both of them. You could merge in 'diff-fix' first and then
'commit-fix' next, like this:

------------
$ git resolve master diff-fix 'Merge fix in diff-fix'
$ git resolve master commit-fix 'Merge fix in commit-fix'
$ git merge 'Merge fix in diff-fix' master diff-fix
$ git merge 'Merge fix in commit-fix' master commit-fix
------------

Which would result in:
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -1649,8 +1650,8 @@ $ git reset --hard master~2
------------

You can make sure 'git show-branch' matches the state before
those two 'git resolve' you just did. Then, instead of running
two 'git resolve' commands in a row, you would pull these two
those two 'git merge' you just did. Then, instead of running
two 'git merge' commands in a row, you would pull these two
branch heads (this is known as 'making an Octopus'):

------------
Expand Down

0 comments on commit 067744b

Please sign in to comment.