You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
In the style guide, the edition.md documentation for changes in each edition is effectively a changelog, and like any changelog, it causes merge conflicts on almost every change.
A merge driver isn't sufficient to solve those conflicts, because GitHub doesn't use merge drivers (even built-in ones).
We should come up with some other way to avoid encountering conflicts with every single edition change.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
One option might be to put three blank lines between each bullet point.
Another might be to put two blank lines, and see if GitHub allows one line of "fuzz" when applying a patch. I haven't found any documentation indicating how much fuzz GitHub allows; this would need testing.
Until such time as we come up with a solution to this, what if we just externalized the changes somewhere (e.g. GitHub issues, Hackmd, etc.) and then once done (or even periodically) we updated the in-repo edition.md file?
In the style guide, the
edition.md
documentation for changes in each edition is effectively a changelog, and like any changelog, it causes merge conflicts on almost every change.A merge driver isn't sufficient to solve those conflicts, because GitHub doesn't use merge drivers (even built-in ones).
We should come up with some other way to avoid encountering conflicts with every single edition change.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: