Git Conflict Resolution and Conflict Style

are incorporated in the final result verbatim. When both sides made changes to the same area, however, Git cannot randomly pick one side over the other, and asks you to resolve it by leaving what both sides did to that area. By default, Git uses the same style as the one used by the "merge" program from the RCS suite to present such a conflicted hunk, like this: ------------ Here are lines that are either unchanged from the common ancestor, or cleanly resolved because only one side changed, or cleanly resolved because both sides changed the same way. <<<<<<< yours:sample.txt Conflict resolution is hard; let's go shopping. ======= Git makes conflict resolution easy. >>>>>>> theirs:sample.txt And here is another line that is cleanly resolved or unmodified. ------------ The area where a pair of conflicting changes happened is marked with markers +<<<<<<<+, `=======`, and +>>>>>>>+. The part before the `=======` is typically your side, and the part afterwards is typically their side. The default format does not show what the original said in the conflicting area. You cannot tell how many lines are deleted and replaced with Barbie's remark on your side. The only thing you can tell is that your side wants to say it is hard and you'd prefer to go shopping, while the other side wants to claim it is easy. An alternative style can be used by setting the `merge.conflictStyle` configuration variable to either `diff3` or `zdiff3`. In `diff3` style, the above conflict may look like this: ------------ Here are lines that are either unchanged from the common ancestor, or cleanly resolved because only one side changed, <<<<<<< yours:sample.txt or cleanly resolved because both sides changed the same way. Conflict resolution is hard; let's go shopping. ||||||| base:sample.txt or cleanly resolved because both sides changed identically. Conflict resolution is hard. ======= or cleanly resolved because both sides changed the same way. Git makes conflict resolution easy. >>>>>>> theirs:sample.txt And here is another line that is cleanly resolved or unmodified. ------------ while in `zdiff3` style, it may look like this: ------------ Here are lines that are either unchanged from the common ancestor, or cleanly resolved because only one side changed, or cleanly resolved because both sides changed the same way. <<<<<<< yours:sample.txt Conflict resolution is hard; let's go shopping. ||||||| base:sample.txt or cleanly resolved because both sides changed identically. Conflict resolution is hard. ======= Git makes conflict resolution easy. >>>>>>> theirs:sample.txt And here is another line that is cleanly resolved or unmodified. ------------ In addition to the +<<<<<<<+, `=======`, and +>>>>>>>+ markers, it uses another +|||||||+ marker that is followed by the original text. You can tell that the original just stated a fact, and your side simply gave in to that statement and gave up, while the other side tried to have a more positive attitude. You can sometimes come up with a better resolution by viewing the

Git presents conflicts between different versions of a file using markers such as +<<<<<<<+, `=======`, and +>>>>>>>+, and provides alternative conflict styles, including `diff3` and `zdiff3`, which can be enabled by setting the `merge.conflictStyle` configuration variable, allowing for more detailed views of the original text and the changes made by each side.