How to keep the local file or the remote file during merge using Git and the command line?

Question

I know how to merge modification using vimdiff, but, assuming I just know that the entire file is good to keep or to throw away, how do I do that?

I don't want to open vimdiff for each of them, I change want a command that says 'keep local' or 'keep remote'.

E.G: I got a merge with files marked as changed because somebody opened it under windows, changing the EOL, and then commited. When merging, I want to just keep my own version and discard his.

I'm also interested in the contrary: I screwed up big time and want to accept the remote file, discarding my changes.

Waiting for Dev... · Accepted Answer · 2020-01-21T17:24:35.403

381

You can as well do:

git checkout --theirs /path/to/file

to keep the remote file, and:

git checkout --ours /path/to/file

to keep local file.

Then git add them and everything is done.

Edition: Keep in mind that this is for a merge scenario. During a rebase --theirs refers to the branch where you've been working.

edited Jan 21 '20 at 17:24

answered Aug 19 '12 at 10:31

Waiting for Dev...

12,629
5
47
57

5

I did this.. but nothing happens.. how do I know it is taking the correct file? I am using `git version 1.8.4` if that matters. – Rosdi Kasim Mar 14 '14 at 05:24
@RosdiKasim /path/to/file must be the path to your correct file. Your git version is ok. – Waiting for Dev... Mar 18 '14 at 08:42
3

why the inverse word use? I assume "theirs" would be remote file and "ours" would be my file – phuclv Mar 11 '17 at 10:11
1

So it is, @LưuVĩnhPhúc – Waiting for Dev... Mar 12 '17 at 14:12
8

no, their meanings are reversed http://stackoverflow.com/q/2959443/995714 http://stackoverflow.com/q/29324812/995714 theirs would be my files and ours are the files in the remote branch – phuclv Mar 12 '17 at 14:55
Well, this could be true during a rebase, but the question is for a merge – Waiting for Dev... Mar 28 '17 at 18:01
7

"Easy", yes. Intuitive? No. – Wilbur Whateley Aug 08 '17 at 00:26
1

I have been using Git daily for almost 3 years and I learn something new weekly – Shadoninja Sep 28 '17 at 19:39
Both of these commands do nothing for my merge-conflicted files. I don't get an error or anything. Everything just stays the same. – Shadoninja Jan 25 '18 at 21:42
`error: path 'data/.../client_id.txt' does not have our version` - Nope, not easy. – falsePockets Feb 12 '18 at 11:34
@Shadoninja , @Rosdi Kasim, in case it helps others who come across your comments above. I was also seeing the same thing, but you then need to resolve each conflict with `git add filename`. When you do that, the index shows the correct changes, i.e. no changes if you've chosen `--ours` – Matt Hyde Apr 24 '19 at 15:34
@VincentFourmond probably you were rebasing instead of merging – Waiting for Dev... Jan 20 '20 at 14:06
1

@WaitingforDev... Indeed. I think this would deserve a clear **bold** warning in the answer, please (and I'll change my -1 to +1 then). – Vincent Fourmond Jan 20 '20 at 14:41
1

Done @VincentFourmond – Waiting for Dev... Jan 21 '20 at 17:24
Thanks for rebase warning. That's exactly why using git is exhausting. The first thing I looked for was rebase scenario as someone who has had painful experiences. – eddym Oct 08 '20 at 12:25

score 145 · Answer 2 · edited Feb 12 '18 at 12:12

145

This approach seems more straightforward, avoiding the need to individually select each file:

# keep remote files
git merge --strategy-option theirs
# keep local files
git merge --strategy-option ours

or

# keep remote files
git pull -Xtheirs
# keep local files
git pull -Xours

Copied directly from: Resolve Git merge conflicts in favor of their changes during a pull

edited Feb 12 '18 at 12:12

midor

5,487
2
23
52

answered May 28 '14 at 07:13

keflavich

18,278
20
86
118

7

Love this one. Specially if there's more than one file. – Tek Aug 08 '14 at 17:34
The question was for two different commands, but there's no description as to what these two do. What does each line do? – Alex Oct 18 '16 at 18:52
I went through at least five stackoverflow answers before finding this, which is what I wanted. Thanks. – Bolton Bailey May 18 '19 at 08:13
Hi @keflavich, if i am doing rebase from 1 branch to another, and l'd like to use this ```git merge --strategy-option theirs``` strategy, at which point should i put this command in? and is it temporary only? I'd like it to only keep effect in this rebase, not the future one. – soMuchToLearnAndShare Jul 27 '20 at 08:56
1

found the answer, sorry did not realize this thread was merge only, i thought it was merge conflicts . https://stackoverflow.com/a/4273436/4582240 – soMuchToLearnAndShare Jul 27 '20 at 09:02
error: Merging is not possible because you have unmerged files ... 8) – metamonkey Jun 07 '21 at 18:56

score 23 · Answer 3 · answered Jun 24 '16 at 06:26

23

git checkout {branch-name} -- {file-name}

This will use the file from the branch of choice.

I like this because posh-git autocomplete works great with this. It also removes any ambiguity as to which branch is remote and which is local. And --theirs didn't work for me anyways.

answered Jun 24 '16 at 06:26

Ben Wilde

5,552
2
39
36

2

No ambiguity, works for both {mine} and {theirs}, supports adding entire directories. **This should be the accepted answer.** – dotancohen Sep 14 '17 at 09:09

sehe · Answer 4 · 2011-07-11T17:52:04.723

11

For the line-end thingie, refer to man git-merge:

--ignore-space-change 
--ignore-all-space 
--ignore-space-at-eol

Be sure to add autocrlf = false and/or safecrlf = false to the windows clone (.git/config)

Using git mergetool

If you configure a mergetool like this:

git config mergetool.cp.cmd '/bin/cp -v "$REMOTE" "$MERGED"'
git config mergetool.cp.trustExitCode true

Then a simple

git mergetool --tool=cp
git mergetool --tool=cp -- paths/to/files.txt
git mergetool --tool=cp -y -- paths/to/files.txt # without prompting

Will do the job

Using simple git commands

In other cases, I assume

git checkout HEAD -- path/to/myfile.txt

should do the trick

Edit to do the reverse (because you screwed up):

git checkout remote/branch_to_merge -- path/to/myfile.txt

edited Jul 11 '11 at 17:52

answered Jul 11 '11 at 12:46

sehe

374,641
47
450
633

+1 for the tips, but not accepted butcause it's not what I asked for. I want something that work in all the cases, not just in the example cases. Plus "git checkout remote/branch_to_merge -- path/to/myfile.txt" won't work if you started your merge already: it will say that you are in the middle of a merge and will prevent you from doing so. – Bite code Jul 11 '11 at 16:56
1

@e-satis: that's surprising. I would consider that a bug, since checkout with a path is not a regular checkout (and it doesn't affect HEAD). I'm gonna try it out now because I can't believe it – sehe Jul 11 '11 at 17:35
1

@e-satis: Soooo... I was right; `git checkout remote/branch_to_merge -- path/to/myfile.txt` works like a charm while resolving a merge conflict. (git 1.7.1) – sehe Jul 11 '11 at 17:38
1

Added a solution based on git mergetool now – sehe Jul 11 '11 at 17:52

score 0 · Answer 5 · answered Jun 24 '21 at 01:25

I asked the questions a day ago, very similar this quesiton but my questions is slightly different because it is something to do with a database, sqlite3.

but a manager on this site asked me to delete the quesition so I did delete it but he finally blocked me.

Anyway, the answer to my matter was "git checkout --their db.sqlite3"

Something related with databse, then just simply "git checkout --their db.sqlite3" not need to put path.

I leave this answer for someone who got same problem as me.

how is this different than the accepted answer? consider improving it to make relevant to the broader audience or removing it. — André Werlang, Nov 08 '21 at 21:27

How to keep the local file or the remote file during merge using Git and the command line?

5 Answers5

Using git mergetool

Using simple git commands

Linked