Use merge=union to reduce CHANGELOG conflicts #373
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
As this change affects only |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Whenever two PRs change the same line of the changelog and one gets merged, the other one is stuck in a merge conflict.
Setting the merge strategy to union will fix this. The only downside is that the order of the lines might not be chronological, which shouldn't be a problem as we usually reorder the lines before a release anyways.
Sadly this will only affect local merges as GitHub still doesn't read the
.gitattributesfile. Strangely GitLab does support this.isaacs/github#487
olivierlacan/keep-a-changelog#56