search

isaacs / github

Just a place to track issues and feature requests that I have for github
2.21k stars 129 forks source link

Support of merge=union #487

Open koppor opened 9 years ago

koppor commented 9 years ago

When merging a branch, it often is the case that there is a conflict in the CHANGELOG only. This is not a realy confligt as the CHANGELOG entries simple have to be merged. This can be configured in git itself by using a merge=union attribute. GitHub currently doesn't support that kind of merge. It would be very helpful if github would.

Blog-Post explaining it in detail: https://about.gitlab.com/2015/02/10/gitlab-reduced-merge-conflicts-by-90-percent-with-changelog-placeholders/

Discussion at keep-a-changelog: https://github.com/olivierlacan/keep-a-changelog/issues/56

koppor commented 9 years ago

GitHub staff on 10 Oct 2015 16:03:13 +0200:

We've added a note to this suggestion on our internal Feature Request List.

kemitchell commented 8 years ago

@koppor: Thanks for creating this issue and posting GitHub's response. I've sent my own note through their contact form to put my name behind the feature request, too.

The use case that brought me here is a little different: AUTHORS files, which list contributors. In terms of the bits and bytes, it's a lot like CHANGELOG, except folks append lines to the end of the file.

kemitchell commented 8 years ago

I received my own reply e-mail assuring that my feedback has been recorded.

powpow12 commented 7 years ago

Thanks @koppor, I have also submitted the contact form and will update if github gets back to me. Just curious, does anyone know why doesn't github have an actual feature request workflow where people can weigh in? It has been two years since that blog post came out and the UI problem still exists with no published workaround. If my competitor was creating features and publishing them I would work to roll them in a timely manner or at least have a similar workaround.

glensc commented 7 years ago

gitlab now has merge=union support, because the underlying rugged library has the support since v0.25 (use v0.25.1.1 with critical fixes)

and as it's github's library, i believe they rely on that library as well. so perhaps it just works now if they upgraded library in their backends?

powpow12 commented 7 years ago

We have an issue opened internally about this subject and I've added your comments to the existing discussion. I can't promise if or when this will be added but we'll keep you updated with any progress.

Looks like they are still working towards a solution. May I suggest, any person who stumbles onto this thread open similar request through their support form. Also, how are people getting around this problem currently?

glensc commented 7 years ago

@powpow12 i just rebase locally and push -f

[~/scm/eventum/eventum (history-event)] ➔ git rebase master
First, rewinding head to replay your work on top of it...
Applying: emit history.add events when history entry is added
Applying: add unstructured event class; add example extension
Applying: add changelog entry
Using index info to reconstruct a base tree...
M       CHANGELOG.md
Falling back to patching base and 3-way merge...
Auto-merging CHANGELOG.md
Applying: add project id to event
[~/scm/eventum/eventum (history-event)↕] ➔
Envek commented 7 years ago

Also, there is a special git-merge-changelog tool which may perform better than merge=union.

See https://github.com/isaacs/github/issues/560#issuecomment-329128262 for details.

23Skidoo commented 6 years ago

We (the Haskell Cabal project) would also benefit from support for merge=union or git-merge-changelog, see haskell/cabal#5625.

acaloiaro commented 5 years ago

Adding an updated response from Github for 2019

  Hi, We do have an internal issue tracking this feature request, and I've
  added your comments there; however, I can't say for sure if or when it
  might be added to a GitHub Enterprise release. Please keep an eye on the
  [3]release notes to be notified when new versions are available, and the
  features that are included in each one.

  For now, users who prefer alternate merge methods will need to perform
  merges using their local Git clients.

  If you have any further comments or feedback, don't hesitate to let us
  know.

  Cheers, Rob
emartynov commented 4 years ago

Any update here?

timotheecour commented 4 years ago

just sent out this to https://support.github.com/contact

Dear github, please add support for merge=union gitattributes. All the context is here https://github.com/isaacs/github/issues/487.

but still hasn't been acted on