Support of merge=union

[koppor]

When merging a branch, it often is the case that there is a conflict in the CHANGELOG only. This is not a realy confligt as the CHANGELOG entries simple have to be merged. This can be configured in git itself by using a merge=union attribute. GitHub currently doesn't support that kind of merge. It would be very helpful if github would.

Blog-Post explaining it in detail: https://about.gitlab.com/2015/02/10/gitlab-reduced-merge-conflicts-by-90-percent-with-changelog-placeholders/

Discussion at keep-a-changelog: olivierlacan/keep-a-changelog#56

[koppor]

GitHub staff on 10 Oct 2015 16:03:13 +0200:

We've added a note to this suggestion on our internal Feature Request List.

[kemitchell]

@koppor: Thanks for creating this issue and posting GitHub's response. I've sent my own note through their contact form to put my name behind the feature request, too.

The use case that brought me here is a little different: AUTHORS files, which list contributors. In terms of the bits and bytes, it's a lot like CHANGELOG, except folks append lines to the end of the file.

[kemitchell]

I received my own reply e-mail assuring that my feedback has been recorded.

[powpow12]

Thanks @koppor, I have also submitted the contact form and will update if github gets back to me. Just curious, does anyone know why doesn't github have an actual feature request workflow where people can weigh in? It has been two years since that blog post came out and the UI problem still exists with no published workaround. If my competitor was creating features and publishing them I would work to roll them in a timely manner or at least have a similar workaround.

[glensc]

gitlab now has merge=union support, because the underlying rugged library has the support since v0.25 (use v0.25.1.1 with critical fixes)

and as it's github's library, i believe they rely on that library as well. so perhaps it just works now if they upgraded library in their backends?

[powpow12]

We have an issue opened internally about this subject and I've added your comments to the existing discussion. I can't promise if or when this will be added but we'll keep you updated with any progress.

Looks like they are still working towards a solution. May I suggest, any person who stumbles onto this thread open similar request through their support form. Also, how are people getting around this problem currently?

[glensc]

@powpow12 i just rebase locally and push -f

[~/scm/eventum/eventum (history-event)] ➔ git rebase master
First, rewinding head to replay your work on top of it...
Applying: emit history.add events when history entry is added
Applying: add unstructured event class; add example extension
Applying: add changelog entry
Using index info to reconstruct a base tree...
M       CHANGELOG.md
Falling back to patching base and 3-way merge...
Auto-merging CHANGELOG.md
Applying: add project id to event
[~/scm/eventum/eventum (history-event)↕] ➔ 

[Envek]

Also, there is a special git-merge-changelog tool which may perform better than merge=union.

See #560 (comment) for details.

[23Skidoo]

We (the Haskell Cabal project) would also benefit from support for merge=union or git-merge-changelog, see haskell/cabal#5625.

[acaloiaro]

Adding an updated response from Github for 2019

  Hi, We do have an internal issue tracking this feature request, and I've
  added your comments there; however, I can't say for sure if or when it
  might be added to a GitHub Enterprise release. Please keep an eye on the
  [3]release notes to be notified when new versions are available, and the
  features that are included in each one.

  For now, users who prefer alternate merge methods will need to perform
  merges using their local Git clients.

  If you have any further comments or feedback, don't hesitate to let us
  know.

  Cheers, Rob

[emartynov]

Any update here?

[timotheecour]

just sent out this to https://support.github.com/contact

Dear github, please add support for merge=union gitattributes.
All the context is here #487.

• this is an often requested feature (even if most people won't go through the trouble of contacting github)
• it's causing regular un-necessary overhead in every single project that has changelogs, causing silly conflicts despite presence of merge=union gitattributes
• it's been supported by gitlab for years https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss/-/issues/17325
• libgit2 has added support for merge=union (or custom merge) since 2016 (Custom merge drivers and proper gitattributes merge handling libgit2/libgit2#3564) and git-merge-changelog custom driver since http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=gnulib.git;a=blob;f=lib/git-merge-changelog.c
• it's been reported to github via this contact form many times since at least 2015 (Support of merge=union #487 (comment))

GitHub staff on 10 Oct 2015 16:03:13 +0200:
We've added a note to this suggestion on our internal Feature Request List.

but still hasn't been acted on