Add `-X ours` argument to your `git merge` command.

Say you are working in your local branch. Then you want to merge in what went in the `master`:

    git merge -X ours master

On the other hand if you *are* in `master` and want to merge your local branch into `master` then @elhadi rightly says you should use `theirs`:

    git merge -X theirs somebranch


To overwrite your stuff in your branch and take their work, you should make

    git merge -X theirs {remote/branch} --&gt; example:origin/master

I&#39;m writing an app that allows users to submit nominations which are moderated before being displayed to other users. This requires a number of restrictions I&#39;ve so far been unsuccessful in implementing with security rules:

1. Hide any nominations that haven&#39;t been approved yet
2. Hide private fields from submission (phone, approval status, creation date etc.)

My current rules are as follows:

    {
        &quot;rules&quot;: {
            &quot;nominations&quot;: {
                &quot;.read&quot;: true,

                &quot;$nominationId&quot;: {
                    &quot;.read&quot;: &quot;data.child(&#39;state&#39;).val() == &#39;approved&#39; || auth != null&quot;, // Only read approved nominations if not authenticated
                    &quot;.write&quot;: &quot;!data.exists()&quot;, // Only allow new nominations to be created

                    &quot;phone&quot;: {
                        &quot;.read&quot;: &quot;auth != null&quot; // Only allow authenticated users to read phone number
                    },

                    &quot;state&quot;: {
                        &quot;.read&quot;: &quot;auth != null&quot;, // Only allow authenticated users to read approval state
                        &quot;.write&quot;: &quot;auth != null&quot; // Only allow authenticated users to change state
                    }
                }
            }
        }
    }

Child rules (e.g. `$nomination`) don&#39;t prevent the entire child from being read from the parent. If I listen for `child_added` on https://my.firebaseio.com/nominations it happily returns all children and all their data even with the above security rules in place.

My current workaround idea for this is to keep a separate node named `approved` and simply move the data between lists whenever someone approves or rejects a nomination, but it seems like a horribly broken approach.

**Update**

Following [Michael Lehenbauer](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/14296625/restricting-child-field-access-with-security-rules/14297061#14297061)&#39;s excellent comment I&#39;ve reimplemented the initial idea with minimal effort.

The new data structure is as follows:

    my-firebase
        |
        `- nominations
            |
            `- entries
            |   |
            |   `- private
            |   `- public
            |
            `- status
                |
                `- pending
                `- approved
                `- rejected

Each nomination is stored under `entries` with private data such as phone number, e-mail etc. under `private` and publicly viewable data under `public`.

The updated rules are as follows:

&lt;!-- language: lang-js --&gt;

    {
        &quot;rules&quot;: {
            &quot;nominations&quot;: {
                &quot;entries&quot;: {
                    &quot;$id&quot;: {
                        &quot;.write&quot;: &quot;!data.exists()&quot;,

                        &quot;public&quot;: {
                            &quot;.read&quot;: true,
                        },

                        &quot;private&quot;: {
                            &quot;.read&quot;: &quot;auth != null&quot;
                        }
                    }
                },

                &quot;status&quot;: {
                    &quot;pending&quot;: {
                        &quot;.read&quot;: &quot;auth != null&quot;,

                        &quot;$id&quot;: {
                            &quot;.write&quot;: &quot;root.child(&#39;nominations/entries&#39;).child($id).exists() &amp;&amp; (auth != null || newData.val() == true)&quot;
                        }
                    },

                    &quot;approved&quot;: {
                        &quot;.read&quot;: true,

                        &quot;$id&quot;: {
                            &quot;.write&quot;: &quot;root.child(&#39;nominations/entries&#39;).child($id).exists() &amp;&amp; auth != null&quot;
                        }
                    },


                    &quot;rejected&quot;: {
                        &quot;.read&quot;: &quot;auth != null&quot;,

                        &quot;$id&quot;: {
                            &quot;.write&quot;: &quot;root.child(&#39;nominations/entries&#39;).child($id).exists() &amp;&amp; auth != null&quot;
                        }
                    }
                }
            }
        }
    }

And the JavaScript implementation:

&lt;!-- language: lang-js --&gt;

    var db = new Firebase(&#39;https://my.firebaseio.com&#39;)
    var nominations = db.child(&#39;nominations&#39;)

    var entries = nominations.child(&#39;entries&#39;)

    var status = nominations.child(&#39;status&#39;)
    var pending = status.child(&#39;pending&#39;)
    var approved = status.child(&#39;approved&#39;)
    var rejected = status.child(&#39;rejected&#39;)

    // Create nomination via form input (not shown)
    var createNomination = function() {
        var data = {
            public: {
                name: &#39;Foo&#39;,
                age: 20
            },

            private: {
                createdAt: new Date().getTime(),
                phone: 123456
            }
        }

        var nomination = entries.push()
        nomination.setWithPriority(data, data.private.createdAt)

        pending.child(nomination.name()).set(true)    
    }

    // Retrieve current nomination status
    var getStatus = function(id, callback) {
        approved.child(id).once(&#39;value&#39;, function(snapshot) {
            if (snapshot.val()) {
                callback(id, &#39;approved&#39;)
            } else {
                rejected.child(id).once(&#39;value&#39;, function(snapshot) {
                    callback(id, snapshot.val() ? &#39;rejected&#39; : &#39;pending&#39;)
                })
            }
        })
    }

    // Change status of nomination
    var changeStatus = function(id, from, to) {
        status.child(from).child(id).remove()
        status.child(to).child(id).set(true)
    }

The only part of the implementation I&#39;m struggling with is handling status changes, my current approach can surely be improved upon:

&lt;!-- language: lang-js --&gt;

    _.each([pending, approved, rejected], function(status) {
        status.on(&#39;child_added&#39;, function(snapshot) {
            $(&#39;#&#39; + snapshot.name()).removeClass(&#39;pending approved rejected&#39;).addClass(status.name())
        })
    })

I was planning on using `child_changed` on `nominations/status` but I haven&#39;t been able to get it working reliably.

Restricting child/field access with security rules

In OAuth 1.0, 2-legged is pretty easily: Simply send the request as usual and omit the `access_token` header.

Things seems to have changed in OAuth 2.0 (drastically, as I found out today :)). In OAuth 2.0, the request no longer has headers such as the nonce, consumer key, timestamp etc. This is just replaced by:

    Authorization: OAuth ya29.4fgasdfafasdfdsaf3waffghfhfgh

I understand how 3 legged authorizations work in OAuth 2.0 and the application flows. But how does 2-legged work in 2.0? Is it possible to design an API that can support both 2-legged and 3-legged OAuth 2.0?

I have been searching for information regarding this, but I have been finding a lot of stuff on 2-legged for 1.0 and almost nothing for 2.0.

How does 2-legged oauth work in OAuth 2.0?

When I merge a branch in Git to master I often get merge conflicts. Is there a way to merge a branch and just overwrite the stuff in the current branch?



Merging but overwriting changes in Git

<p>When I merge a branch in Git to master I often get merge conflicts. Is there a way to merge a branch and just overwrite the stuff in the current branch?</p>


Is it possible to have [gitlab](http://gitlabhq.com/) set up to automatically sync (mirror) a repository hosted at another location?

At the moment, the easiest way I know of doing this involves manually pushing to the two (gitlab and the other) repository, but this is time consuming and error prone.

The greatest problem is that a mirror can resynchronize if two users concurrently push changes to the two different repositories. The best method I can come up with to prevent this issue is to ensure users can only push to one of the repositories.

Gitlab repository mirroring

I have **two** remote git repositories. `origin` and `github`

I push my branch `devel` to both repositories.

    git push -u origin devel
    git push -u github devel

But then, when I do. `git push` It would only get pushed to `github`.

Is there anyway I can set up my two remotes, so that I can push changes to both repositories with one command ?

Git - Pushing code to two remotes

I&#39;ve made some changes to my git repo that I wish to undo.

My git repo looked like this:

	A-B----		master
	   \   /
	    C-D		* develop

I was on the `develop` branch, forgot that it differed from the `master` branch, made a change on `develop`, merged it into `master`, and then pushed to my remote (called `publish`).

Because there were no changes on master since B (common ancestor), git did a fast-forward merge.

Now, my repo looks like this:

	A-B-C-D   master, develop, remotes/publish/master, remotes/publish/develop.

I wanted to revert the last merge, restoring `master` to B.

From what I read in https://stackoverflow.com/questions/927358/undo-last-git-commit, I used `git reset sha-of-B` to restore my `master` branch to revision B.

Questions:

- How do I restore `develop` to revision D?
- How do I then push these changes back to remote/publish?


Undo a fast-forward merge

How do I ignore the following error message on Git pull?

&gt; Your local changes to the following files would be overwritten by merge

What if I **want** to overwrite them?

I&#39;ve tried things like `git pull -f`, but nothing works.

To be clear, I only want to overwrite specific changes, not everything.



How do I ignore an error on &#39;git pull&#39; about my local changes would be overwritten by merge?

I&#39;m trying to test something on a wordpress install. In doing so, I&#39;d like to quickly replicate the repo. However, the upload directory (`wp-content/uploads`) is massive, so I&#39;d like to ignore it.

Note: I don&#39;t want to .gitignore this directory all the time, just for this scenario.

Basically, I&#39;d like a command like this pseudo code: `git clone --ignore wp-content/uploads`.

Is the best way to add that directory to .gitignore, clone, and then revert .gitignore? Or is there a better method?

git clone, ignoring a directory

I want to know an exact algorithm (or near that) behind &#39;git merge&#39;. The answers at least to these sub-questions will be helpful:

 - How does git detect the context of a particular non-conflicting change?
 - How does git find out that there is a conflict in these exact lines?
 - Which things does git auto-merge?
 - How does git perform when there is no common base for merging branches?
 - How does git perform when there are multiple common bases for merging branches?
 - What happens when I merge multiple branches at once?
 - What is a difference between merge strategies?

But the description of a whole algorithm will be much better.

How does &#39;git merge&#39; work in details?

I am using Git in Visual Studio. When I am trying to synchronize, the following message appears:

&gt; An error occured. Detailed message: An error was raised by libgit2. Cetegory = checkout(MergeConflict). 1 conflicts prevent checkout

I don&#39;t have a clue about what the conflicts are and how to fix them. Can anyone help me overcome this problem?

&quot;Conflicts prevent checkout&quot; error using Git in Visual Studio

Is there a way to resolve conflict for all files using checkout `--ours` and `--theirs`? I know that you can do it for individual files but couldn&#39;t find a way to do it for all.

Git resolve conflict using --ours/--theirs for all files

I&#39;m a webpack rookie who wants to learn all about it.
I came across a conflict when running my webpack telling me: 

&gt; ERROR in chunk html [entry]  app.js  Conflict: Multiple assets emit to
&gt; the same filename app.js

What should I do to avoid the conflict?

This is my webpack.config.js:

&lt;!-- begin snippet: js hide: false console: true babel: false --&gt;

&lt;!-- language: lang-js --&gt;

    module.exports = {
      context: __dirname + &quot;/app&quot;,

      entry: {
        &#39;javascript&#39;: &quot;./js/app.js&quot;,
        &#39;html&#39;: &quot;./index.html&quot;,
      },
      output: {
        path: __dirname + &quot;/dist&quot;,
        filename: &quot;app.js&quot;,
      },
      resolve: {
        extensions: [&#39;.js&#39;, &#39;.jsx&#39;, &#39;.json&#39;]
      },
      module: {
        loaders: [
          {
            test: /\.jsx?$/,
            exclude: /node_modules/,
            loaders: [&quot;babel-loader&quot;]
          },
          {
            test: /\.html$/,
            loader: &quot;file-loader?name=[name].[ext]&quot;,
          }
        ]
      }
    };


&lt;!-- end snippet --&gt;



Content Type	Original Author	Original Content on Stackoverflow
Question	John Hunt	View Question on Stackoverflow
Solution 1 - Git	kmkaplan	View Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 2 - Git	elhadi dp ıpɐɥןǝ	View Answer on Stackoverflow

Merging but overwriting changes in Git

Git Problem Overview

Git Solutions

Solution 1 - Git

Solution 2 - Git

How does 2-legged oauth work in OAuth 2.0?

Restricting child/field access with security rules

Attributions