Re: Force merge conflicts?

Hello all;

On 1/23/2024 3:51 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 11:20 AM Mathieu Arnold <mat@freebsd.org> wrote:
>
>     On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 03:51:32PM +0100, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
>     > Is there a way to tell git to create a conflict when two branches
>     > have the same change?
>
>     I had a look and Git conflicts' resolution does not seem to be able to
>     do that. For Git, when you merge two files that have the same change,
>     then it assumes that it is the same change and is happy with it.
>
>     For the case you are talking about, I would either:
>
>     - Defer the PORTREVISION bump to when the branch is ready to be
>     merged,
>       and automate it with one of the scripts in Tools.
>     - Bump PORTREVISON and add a comment on the same line with, say,
>       `# TODO: remove me` so that it forces a conflict to arise and
>       mechanically remove them before merging.
>
>
> Personally, I'd set PORTREVISION to 100 in the branch and merge often. 
> Who says that
> the first bump has to be to 1? If you really want it to be the 
> numerically next number, bump
> it each time there's a conflict, (so 101, 102, 103) then you can look 
> for those > 100 and
> re-adjust. If this has been done before, start at 200, etc. Since 
> there's nothing wrong with 100,
> though, you could do this and land it like that in the main tree.
>
> It's a different variation on the force a conflict ploy though
>
> Warner


An alternative: don't touch the PORTREVISION until your PR is ready to 
be merged. You can merge all day long and not cause a conflict on this 
one line.