Subject: Re: Considering merge --dry-run to foresee conflicts ahead of time

From: Konstantin Tokarev <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2021 21:39:47 +0300

17.02.2021, 20:25, "Alireza" <[email-masked]>:
> I have a half baked alias for this and it proved to be extremely
> useful even in this state.
>
> ```
> check = "!f() { BRANCH=${1:-HEAD}; BASE=${2:-origin/master}; git
> merge-tree $(git merge-base $BRANCH $BASE) $BRANCH $BASE | sed -n
> \"/+<<<<<<< .our/,/+>>>>>>> .their/p\"; }; f"
> ```
>
> Of course with large conflicts it gets less useful. Getting only file
> names from the patch isn't straightforward either.
>
> So my question is what are the downsides to introducing a `merge
> --dry-run` option and what would it look like?

As a git user, I would very much welcome this addition, and similar for cherry-pick,
provided they don't modify any files in working copy.

-- 
Regards,
Konstantin