I have basically the same complaint about most of the mergetools I've used; they tend to just do more than I want. I'm sure that's largely a PEBKAC problem, but..... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Definitely going to take a look at this; you screenshots look promising.
One thing I miss on every merge tool is full history context for both sides ("side" == ours/theirs).
i.e., I don't want to just see the final state of ours/theirs, but the changes that us/them did in order to get to those final states.
IOW, often, both sides of the diff are nearly identical, and I have to squint to see the actual difference, and make some additional effort to figure out the intent of each side.
A better format would be, for each side:
Original state -> change -> final state
- "Original state" would be normally identical for both sides
- "change" would be tiny and unique for each side, helps you see the intent of each side clearly
- "final state" is normally pretty similar between sides, (which is what troubles me, if no context given).
I've found myself wanting the same thing. Git's diff algorithms are sometimes not as smart as I wish they were. Recently, when merging master into my feature branch, I had an incoming one line change trigger a single diff that was nearly the size of an entire file. That change wasn't even in the same area of the file I had been working on. Being able to walk forward and backwards through the incoming changes would have resolved the issue much faster than comparing "ours" and "theirs" by eye to see what actually changed.
I like p4merge. It's the UI from perforce, but it's free and you can use it with Git easily. Most 3-way merge tools will show you: yours, theirs, base, and the final result.
vimdiff is another one. Searching for merge.tool and diff.tool in the git-config man page shows a list of programs that git supports for conflict resolution.
This is one reason I enjoy doing rebases more than merges - you apply one change at a time, and so get to see the history for at least one of the sides.
One thing that always hits me during rebasing is trying to figure out which side is which. Somehow it feels like sometimes they switch, though I'm sure that doesn't make sense.
I definitely get lost in big rebases too, same experience. I look at two sides of a merge and even with 3-way turned on I still question which version is the one I want, obviously the point of conflict resolution is to keep the important bits of both sides but I still feel like it takes forever to do it
The sense is sort of reversed between rebase and merge. When rebasing, the branch you're rebasing onto is considered the canonical/local branch, despite not being the current branch when you issued "git rebase".
I usually can keep it straight by thinking, which branch would Linus think is his? That’s ‘ours’, and the new, potentially code-breaking branch is ‘theirs’.
If you click on the files in the pull request, you can see the diff and the changes on the source and target branches at once. You can also search for diffs on both branches at once, to quickly see how they were introduced.
I usually look at their commit logs for that file at that area, I also find it useful to commit the unresolved conflicts when doing a merge and then resolve them in later commits so I can look at what I did later if I need to fix a bad merge
Perforce's P4Merge is the least-worst (free) merge app I've found for Mac. I use it for git and hg. That said, I'm always open for recommendations for something better.
Any non-trivial merge conflict requires producing a hybrid of the two versions. From the screenshot it looks like all you can do is select one of the two versions. Isn't that extremely limiting?
Also it looks like this doesn't show the ancestor version, which is a shame as that's extremely useful.
What I frequently have trouble with is knowing what is represented by “theirs” and “ours”. I wish it would just tell me the branch name instead because sometimes both commits are logically “ours” or “theirs”.
Obviously that would only work for ‘git merge branch’ scenarios and the like but it’d be great.
Following links on github, apparently it's Console User Interface. Looking at the project, it's what I've always known as a TUI (Text User Interface). I wonder why this new acronym appeared. It's even causing confusion with Commandline User Interface which sounds like CLI (Command Line Interface) which should be a different type of interface from TUI.
59 comments
[ 5.0 ms ] story [ 155 ms ] threadDefinitely going to take a look at this; you screenshots look promising.
Everyone I talked into using it had always initially thought "meh" but later thanked me - claiming it's a huge life-saver :)
It makes solving conflicts into a fun mechanical game while reducing erroneous merges by a lot.
i.e., I don't want to just see the final state of ours/theirs, but the changes that us/them did in order to get to those final states.
IOW, often, both sides of the diff are nearly identical, and I have to squint to see the actual difference, and make some additional effort to figure out the intent of each side.
A better format would be, for each side:
Original state -> change -> final state
- "Original state" would be normally identical for both sides
- "change" would be tiny and unique for each side, helps you see the intent of each side clearly
- "final state" is normally pretty similar between sides, (which is what troubles me, if no context given).
Maybe I'm missing something, feel free to correct
But the 3-way merge apps I remember conflate the past context with the would-be result, which was confusing.
Googling now I see that one of them has distinct "Reference view" and "Edit view" tabs - sounds like what I was looking for.
Any recommended 3-way app?
https://www.perforce.com/downloads/visual-merge-tool
Example:
https://www.perforce.com/sites/default/files/image/2017-06/s...
I'm curious, would something like this help you better understand a complex merge?
https://public.gitsense.com/insight/github?r=Microsoft/vscod...
If you click on the files in the pull request, you can see the diff and the changes on the source and target branches at once. You can also search for diffs on both branches at once, to quickly see how they were introduced.
Disclaimer: I'm the creator behind GitSense
They can be used with git as well.
https://www.perforce.com/downloads/visual-merge-tool
This can be frustrating at times, since many code bases cannot be reformatted or refactored because it affects version control history.
(I'm not affiliated with them in any way)
I recommend Perforce's as a merge tool because it is better than average at the specific task of merging.
Nowdays I'm using webstorm and it's differ/merger is very very good, but ymmv.
An underused feature is "local history", which is a local cache of all local changes. This can be a lifesaver sometimes.
of all the diff notations, for some reason FreeBSD updater and git merge chose the worst (for me at least)
Also it looks like this doesn't show the ancestor version, which is a shame as that's extremely useful.
Obviously that would only work for ‘git merge branch’ scenarios and the like but it’d be great.
Thanks for creating this mkchoi212!
https://support.gitkraken.com/working-with-repositories/bran...