Suppose I have two branches, master and release/2.0, and I want to merge the release branch into master.
I do a pull request to merge release/2.0 to master, but, after the pull request has been done, I discover that there is a conflict (for example, application's version within the main POM).
How can I solve the conflict? Is the previous one (direct pull request in BitBucket) the right approach, or I have to perform the merge in my local environment and then make the pull request? In this case, which are the steps to perform?
Thanks in advance.
You have two options to resolve the conflict:
1) Resolve them without a pull request.
To do this, you would checkout the master branch, and then pull in the release branch. This is effectively the solution that Bitbucket Server give you when you ask for more information on how to solve the conflict.
$ git checkout master $ git pull origin release/2
<resolve merge conflicts and commit>
$ git push
2) Resolve them with a pull request
To do this, you would create a branch off the tip of
master, pull in the release branch and create a pull request from that branch to master. This is the best option if you don't have permission to push directly to master.
$ git checkout master $ git checkout -b resolve-conflicts-branch $ git pull origin release/2
<resolve merge conflicts and commit>
$ git push -u origin resolve-conflicts-branch
<create pull request>
Note: Once you have resolve the conflicts through either of these methods, your old pull request from
master will be closed automatically since there will no longer be any diff.
Correct, however the pull request that has been automatically opened doesn't have any reviewers by default. So it's totally up to your team how you would like to handle them. If you want the merge conflict resolution to be reviewed, then you should go with option 2 where you open a new pull request on a branch with a different name (but the same head commit). Once that pull request has been reviewed and merged, the initial pull request will be automatically closed so you don't have to worry about it.
If your team doesn't feel like it is necessary to have reviewers on all pull requests, or doesn't feel like it is necessary to review merge conflict resolution changes, then they can just go for option 1, which is a little bit less convoluted.
perform the merge in reverse locally, merging master into release/2
git checkout release/2 git merge master
then manually resolve any conflicts, commit and push
git commit git push
Your pull request should automatically update itself to the new commit and there are no longer any conflicts (because you just resolved them all)
You could also use a rebase instead of a merge. This gives a cleaner look to your history, at the cost of a little bit of historical accuracy. Many people think that's a good deal.
git checkout release/2 git rebase master <resolve conflicts manually> git push
As before, your Pull Request should now be mergeable
True. I was kind of assuming you'd be deleting the release branch after merging it into master.
In GitFlow branching strategy, a release branch should usually be deleted (or at least abandoned) after the release was finalized, which is when you would merge it back into master.
@Barrie Pfeifer, yes there is.
You can configure the merge strategies to only allow fast-forwards.
However, depending on your configuration this might make it difficult to make sure your branch is always ahead of the destination and also give enough time for a green build (because rebasing will change the commit hashes, and hence the builds). Of course if you don't have frequent changes to the destination branch and your pull request builds are fast then it will probably be ok.
Depending on your use case, you may also be interested in the Auto-unapprove plugin that will reset the reviewers' approvals when there are meaningful changes on the destination branch. If this is coupled with a merge check that ensures that the reviewers have approved then it can also block the merge.
Hope this helps,
We've developed a plugin, Power Editor for Bitbucket, that allows you to resolve conflicts on a pull request in the UI. You won't need to go through any of the git commands anymore (even though we highly recommend you learn them, they can be quite useful). You can check out out here.
It also supports:
I resolve locally, w/ a non-fast forward merge from the target branch into the source branch. A word about non-fast forward merges, they create an easily rescinded commit should you require a rollback.
1. Checkout to master, get latest, checkout to your release/2.0 and non-fast forward merge master in to it:
git checkout master && git pull && git checkout release/2.0 && git merge --no-ff master
2. Your output will indicate which files are conflicting. Iron out those conflicts.
3. Commit the conflict resolution, push your release branch back up for a clean pull request.
git commit -am "resolve merge conflict" && git push
@Casey Wise, maybe I'm misunderstanding your comment but it seems to me that this will result in all the changes from master being on the release branch.
If you then want to make a bugfix to that release branch, you may not get what you expect because it will contain all the changes from master too - which may be API breaking, contain extra features etc and is against the rules of SemVer.
Hello! My name is Mark Askew and I am a Premier Support Engineer for products Bitbucket Server/Data Center, Fisheye & Crucible. Today, I want to bring the discussion that Jennifer, Matt, and ...
Connect with like-minded Atlassian users at free events near you!Find a group
Connect with like-minded Atlassian users at free events near you!
Unfortunately there are no AUG chapters near you at the moment.Start an AUG
You're one step closer to meeting fellow Atlassian users at your local meet up. Learn more about AUGs