3

When merging conflicts In smerge mode, how to select "mine" for all conflicts? At the moment I only know how to do it one by one with smerge-use-lower or C-c ^ l.

Update: a possible solution using Magit?

I just found basically the same question on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/emacs/comments/18h0u9v/smerge_keep_lower_for_entire_file/, although I've not figured out how the solution there works. It uses the 'k' key with Magit.

Also, it seems it could be done from the "Magit mini-buffer"? Not sure how though. https://github.com/magit/magit/issues/4458

1 Answer 1

4

Sure, the following function works for me to automatically resolve all conflicts inside a file:

(defun smerge-resolve-all-in-file-to (to-keep)
  "Resolves all conflicts inside a file in preference of TO-KEEP

TO-KEEP decides which part to keep and is one of `upper',
`lower', `base'"
  (interactive
   (list (completing-read "Keeping (upper, base, lower): "
                          '(upper base lower))))
  (let ((resolve-func
         (pcase to-keep
           ("upper" 'smerge-keep-upper)
           ("base"  'smerge-keep-base)
           ("lower" 'smerge-keep-lower)
           (_ (error "Unknown resolution argument!"))))
        (num-chars-bfore (point-max)))
    (save-excursion
      (goto-char (point-min))
      (while (ignore-errors (not (smerge-next)))
        (funcall resolve-func)))
    (when (= num-chars-bfore (point-max))
      (message "No conflicts were found"))))

It is interactive with autocompletion, so you can do a M-x smerge-resolve-all-file-conflicts and it will autocomplete upper, base, lower args for you.


I also sent it upstream because I often need such functional in my work, but Emacs maintainers don't want to accept it based on their claim that they never had such a need, hence people won't use it. If you want it to be in Emacs, please voice your opinion on the issue by emailing to [email protected].

5
  • Thanks. It's a bit surprising there wasn't already a built-in a way to do it.
    – qazwsx
    Feb 22 at 23:20
  • Also, why not adding the keywords mine and theirs too?
    – qazwsx
    Feb 22 at 23:21
  • 1
    @qazwsx well, smerge works with upper/lower terminology (my guess is because these conflicts may be generated by other software such as Mercurial, which may have different terminology.). I can't guarantee that between git versions there is strict correlation between upper/lower and theirs/ours. Besides, "theirs/ours" is confusing, because its meaning changes between git commands, so it's not even a good terminology. Btw, I sent the patch upstream, but the discussion is still ongoing, apparently maintainers do not think it's useful.
    – Hi-Angel
    Feb 23 at 7:00
  • The linked discussion was too long and complex for me to digest. Could I please get a summary from you -- is it that no existing feature help with my original need? It does require a new function like in your answer?
    – qazwsx
    Feb 23 at 23:47
  • @qazwsx from what I understand, there was no such functional, and there also will not be unless I manage to convince them it's useful to people.
    – Hi-Angel
    Feb 24 at 6:44

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.