You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
My repos have constantly conflicting version.locks, particularly exacerbated by various excavators racing each other. The CI expense alone must be high, plus I have to waste my time managing all these PRs.
Less frequently, versions.props conflicts as well, but at least that's within my power to manage to minimize these by separating the more frequently changing deps.
What did you want to happen?
#1001 had a go at adding three comments to space the lock lines out. Can this be (spiritually) revived, or at least the way forward determined?
@gluxon pushed through a similar change to pnpm (pnpm/pnpm#5091) which has since become default. Could we adopt similar inline format here? I'm not a fan of the empty comments from #1001, but perhaps one of these ticks the box for git and is functional?
Before we go down this route, I've found that apparently git has some built in merge drivers (e.g. one called union) and also allows us to configure a custom one. Maybe it's worth pursuing this?? http://schacon.github.io/git/gitattributes.html
I'm not sure if anyone did any investigations down this route, it doesn't look particularly useful here to me (at least without dedupe/sorting as well I guess).
But most importantly IMO, ideally we don't need to make any extra configuration changes to every repo and our fix here just works OOTB.
My concerns with @schlosna's approach (#1001) are pretty mild/cosmetic tbh, if people are experiencing a lot of pain from these adjacent line merge conflicts and current maintainers want to go for this approach then I'd say go for it!
I don't have super strong feelings about the format, mostly interested in avoiding merge conflicts where possible to allow automation & 🤖 to do their thing while I sleep. I've updated #1001 to just use blank lines as buffer.
What happened?
My repos have constantly conflicting
version.locks
, particularly exacerbated by various excavators racing each other. The CI expense alone must be high, plus I have to waste my time managing all these PRs.Less frequently,
versions.props
conflicts as well, but at least that's within my power to manage to minimize these by separating the more frequently changing deps.What did you want to happen?
#1001 had a go at adding three comments to space the lock lines out. Can this be (spiritually) revived, or at least the way forward determined?
@gluxon pushed through a similar change to pnpm (pnpm/pnpm#5091) which has since become default. Could we adopt similar inline format here? I'm not a fan of the empty comments from #1001, but perhaps one of these ticks the box for git and is functional?
Option 1
(Actually this might still trip git up 🤔)
Option 2
Trivial regex to match the old one line format and this two line format.
I'm happy to make a PR if we can reach a consensus.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: