"Julia Evans via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > +If there is a merge conflict during this process, `git rebase` will stop at the > +first problematic commit and leave conflict markers. If this happens, you can: By using the numbered enumeration below, we may mislead the readers that these are the things they have to do in this order, when we actually are giving them choices. If this happens, you can do one of these things: would be an easy workaround. > +1. Resolve the conflict. You can use `git diff` to find the markers (<<<<<<) > + and make edits to resolve the conflict. For each file you edit, you need to > + tell Git that the conflict has been resolved. Typically this would be > + done with > + > + git add <filename> > + > + You can then continue the rebasing process with > + > + git rebase --continue The original (below) does not do a perfect job, but I am afraid that this increases the chance of misunderstanding by new readers that they'd run "continue" after marking each confclited fines as "done" with "git add", by reducing a sentence to a mere "then" in "You can then continue". Typically after resolving all the conflicts in a single file, you would tell Git that you are done with this file: git add <filename> And after dealing with all the conflicted files and telling Git that you are done, you would continue the rebasing process with git rebase --continue or something? > +2. Stop the `git rebase` and return your branch to its original state with > + > + git rebase --abort > + > +3. Skip the commit that caused the merge conflict with > + > + git rebase --skip The explanation in the above looks good, and the new organization is much easier to follow and is definite improvement compared to the original. I am not sure how the above how the above formats, though, especially on a medium that is not monospaced text (e.g., html rendition, not "git help -m rebase" on terminals). The prose should typeset just like the normal text (i.e. your "Transplant a series of commits" in the previous step that starts the description section), but the command that the users would type should be typeset in monospace typewriter. Have you tried? Thanks.
