How do I go about solving this git conflict?

I have made a central bare shared repo at foo.org.
user A has done git clone ssh://foo.org/blah.git
user A has created file 'lol' which is a blank file. Commits it to local repo. Does git push
user B does mkdir foo and cd foo
user B then does git clone ssh://foo.org/blah.git.
user B edits lol file.
user A edits lol file.
user A commits and git push to central repo
user B commits and git push and is given:

error: failed to push some refs to 'ssh://foo.org/blah.git' To prevent you from losing history, non-fast-forward updates were rejected Merge the remote changes before pushing again. See the 'non-fast forward'
user b does git pull

From ssh://foo.org/home/meder/central/foo 08a0cda..fba6968 master -> origin/master Auto-merging lol CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in lol Automatic merge failed; fix conflicts and then commit the result.
user b does vim lol and edits file to his liking. then tries git commit afterwards and is given:

lol: needs merge lol: unmerged (039727ec5a50d0ed45ff67e6f4c9b953bd23c17d) lol: unmerged (9307e337aa159ed6574eb84532f107685e46a16c) lol: unmerged (f88ad411f67850938dc369426cdbba76812e9126) error: Error building trees

What do I have to do at this point? I tried a git merge but it says fatal: You have not concluded your merge. (MERGE_HEAD exists)

I know for sure I'm doing something stupidly wrong. Can someone just point out what it is?

`lol` exists already since it was cloned from central repo.

meder 2010-10-28 19:08:05

this should be a comment, not an answer...

Climber104 2010-10-28 19:08:06

hm, i actually think you're right. i didn't do an explicit `git add lol` on the hand-merge. so does git change the branch or un-add it? or did i never add it in the first place? *confused*

meder 2010-10-28 19:11:28

You have to 'git add' the modification before 'git commit'. 'git commit -a' will do the add for you, too. I know it's the same command as for adding a new file; you have to do the same for merges too.

Graham Perks 2010-10-28 19:30:33

A way to picture this is the think that you have to 'add' your modification/change to git.

Graham Perks 2010-10-28 19:33:00

I don't understand why this should be a comment. It's the answer!

Graham Perks 2010-10-28 19:57:30

@Graham: I think it's your phrasing of this as a question that got you that comment comment; requests for more information should be comments. You might want to edit it to be a statement (with an explanation). It is indeed the answer, though. (+1)

Jefromi 2010-10-28 21:18:19

@meder: git does not change the branch or un-add content. It finds a conflict, and therefore does not know what content to add. It lets the user resolve the conflict (you mentioned editing the file), and then the user must tell git to add that *new* content. Yes, the content is new - git had no idea how you were going to resolve it. It would've resolved it for you if it did! So, you have to tell git: here, stage this content for commit. Same as with any other content you want git to know about.

Jefromi 2010-10-28 21:19:52

ansaurus

tags:

views:

answers:

How do I go about solving this git conflict?

related questions