Best Practices
Conflict Resolution Routine
Turn conflict handling into a repeatable routine so fewer steps are missed under pressure.
- Individuals or teams who want more predictable Git habits
- Maintainers setting collaboration expectations
- At least one real collaboration loop
- Basic command familiarity without a stable routine yet
- Treating guidance as absolute law without context
- Memorizing process without understanding team boundaries
Why conflict handling breaks down under pressure
Conflicts are rarely dangerous because the commands are mysterious. They become dangerous because people improvise: edit files first, guess later, and eventually lose track of whether they are in merge, rebase, or cherry-pick.
The fix is not more panic-driven command memorization. The fix is a routine.
1. Always start with status
Run:
git status
before touching the files. It tells you:
- whether you are in merge or rebase
- which files are conflicted
- what Git expects next
That gives you context before action.
2. Do not treat conflict markers as the real problem
The markers are just symptoms. The real task is to decide which logic should survive and how the two sides relate to the current goal.
A safer order is:
- understand what each side represents
- decide what to keep, combine, or rewrite
- remove the markers
- validate the result
3. “File saved” is not the end of the process
After resolving a conflict, you still need to:
git add <resolved-files>
git status
Then continue with the correct flow:
git rebase --continue- complete the merge workflow
- or finish the cherry-pick flow
If the change matters, re-run the smallest useful tests too.
4. Know when to stop instead of forcing it
Pause when:
- you no longer understand what the two sides mean
- unrelated files keep getting dragged in
- you are not sure whether you are inside merge, rebase, or cherry-pick
- you are trying to “make the file compile first and think later”
At that point, aborting is often safer:
git merge --abortgit rebase --abort
5. A reusable team routine
This is a strong baseline:
- run
git status - understand the conflict before editing
- remove all markers completely
- re-check the behavior
- only then continue or commit
That routine turns conflict handling from a stressful surprise into an expected workflow.