Git: Merge to master while automatically choosing to overwrite master files with branch

Question

I am using Git to track my documentation latex source. I want to keep the master branch full of documents that are suitable for end user release, so when someone needs something, i can just switch to the master branch, compile and hand out the document.

I make new branches when a manual needs a major update. But, when the manual is approved, it needs to get merged back into the master. When merging from branch into master, I would like to pass some command to Git to say, "forget the merging, just use the the file from branch to overwrite the file in master." Is there a way to do this? Specifically, I want to avoid opening up a merge tool every time. Thanks in advance.

You could do an interactive merge and spoon feed it (with `yes`) whatever the answer is when it asks what to do... — R. Martinho Fernandes, Aug 18 '09 at 17:03
@r-martinho-fernandes: What's the interactive merge command? — S B, Oct 19 '11 at 08:01

Robert · Accepted Answer · 2012-10-29T08:16:22.883

66

To disregard master, when you have branch checked out then:

git merge master --strategy=ours

http://schacon.github.com/git/git-merge.html

As 'Computer Linguist' commented here, this will "ignore everything from 'master', even if it has changes to new, independent files". So if you are not the OP and want a more safe merge that does not as the OP says "forget the merging", then use this excellent safe command from 'Computer Linguist', and plus his comment up so he gets creds.

git merge -s recursive -X theirs branch

edited Oct 29 '12 at 08:16

answered Aug 18 '09 at 17:04

Robert

12,819
4
35
44

1

From here: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/366860/when-would-you-use-the-different-git-merge-strategies, this says: Ours == I want to pull in another head, but throw away all of the changes that head introduces. So is opposite of what OP wanted. – Amala Oct 27 '10 at 16:02
5

If you're in branch and you `git merge master --strategy=ours` then it keeps branch's changes. (what OP wants) But if you are in master and use "ours" then it keeps master's. (opposite) – Robert Nov 01 '10 at 23:14
5

From my reading of the question, Mica wants to merge branch into master, keeping the state of branch i.e. `git merge branch` onto master, so --strategy=ours is the opposite of what he wants – Arne Claassen Dec 07 '10 at 18:37
39

From branch 'master', running `git merge -s recursive -X theirs branch` will resolve all conflicts by picking the 'branch' version. using -s ours will ignore everything from 'master', even if it has changes to new, independent files. – Lilith River Sep 07 '11 at 21:44
4

OP wants to target the merge to `master`, but @Robert's answer targets onto `branch` – S B Oct 19 '11 at 08:14
4

This answer became a lot confusing to me. That command are doing the opposite. – John John Pichler Mar 10 '14 at 14:39
Instead of the **second command** here, isn't it sufficient to do `git merge branch` while on master? IIRC it will be simply Fast-Forwarded. Am I missing something? – Dheeraj Bhaskar Sep 21 '15 at 10:32
for anyone who is still confused who wants to overwrite all files on master with those on the branch (regardless of whether or not there are conflicts), see this answer on a duplicate question: https://stackoverflow.com/a/2862938/1179207 – dougmacklin Jun 05 '17 at 12:55

score 15 · Answer 2 · answered Jul 29 '10 at 16:08

In version 1.7.1 of Git, you can use "-Xtheirs" to merge in the branch itself.

For example, if you start in your master branch, starting in master

git checkout -b editBranch -- edit your files -- git add . git commit -m "Updated the files" git checkout master git merge -Xtheirs editBranch

Another way that I've seen to do this based off this post is to do a hard reset off the editBranch. For example:

git checkout -b editBranch -- edit your files -- git add . git commit -m "Updated the files" git checkout master git reset --hard editBranch

I think this second way might be the better play, but I haven't had a chance to play around with it enough yet.

thanks. I'll have to update git at home, and check this out. Much appreciated. — Mica, Jul 30 '10 at 21:36

score 2 · Answer 3 · edited May 23 '17 at 11:54

I believe you can do this with the 'ours' merge strategy:

git checkout branch
git merge -s ours master

But this doesn't do exactly what you want: it override the contents of the current working branch branch and what you want is to get the same contents onto master. What you really want is a merge strategy theirs, and for that I point you at this similar question for a way to do it. In practice what it boils down to is resetting master to point at branch.

Git: Merge to master while automatically choosing to overwrite master files with branch

3 Answers3

Linked