It seems I was just looking in the wrong place. The solution turned out to be quite simple.

    git checkout -m &lt;file&gt;

This returns the file to its conflicted state. I can then run `git mergetool` to redo the merge.

You can always edit the files manually.

If you are using the `git merge --no-commit`, then you will simply have a prepared commit (after the auto and semi-auto) merge.

You can still safely edit the files and only commit when completely satisfied.

If I were using an RDBMS (e.g. SQL Server) to store event sourcing data, what might the schema look like? 

I&#39;ve seen a few variations talked about in an abstract sense, but nothing concrete. 

For example, say one has a &quot;Product&quot; entity, and changes to that product could come in the form of: Price, Cost and Description. I&#39;m confused about whether I&#39;d: 

 1. Have a &quot;ProductEvent&quot; table, that has all the fields for a product, where each change means a new record in that table, plus &quot;who, what, where, why, when and how&quot; (WWWWWH) as appropriate. When cost, price or description are changed, a whole new row as added to represent the Product.
 2. Store product Cost, Price and Description in separate tables joined to the Product table with a foreign key relationship. When changes to those properties occur, write new rows with WWWWWH as appropriate.
 3. Store WWWWWH, plus a serialised object representing the event, in a &quot;ProductEvent&quot; table, meaning the event itself must be loaded, de-serialised and re-played in my application code in order to re-build the application state for a given Product.

Particularly I worry about option 2 above. Taken to the extreme, the product table would be almost one-table-per-property, where to load the Application State for a given product would require loading all events for that product from each product event table. This table-explosion smells wrong to me.
 
I&#39;m sure &quot;it depends&quot;, and while there&#39;s no single &quot;correct answer&quot;, I&#39;m trying to get a feel for what is acceptable, and what is totally not acceptable. I&#39;m also aware that NoSQL can help here, where events could be stored against an aggregate root, meaning only a single request to the database to get the events to rebuild the object from, but we&#39;re not using a NoSQL db at the moment so I&#39;m feeling around for alternatives.

Using an RDBMS as event sourcing storage

I&#39;ve got the following field on an MVC view:

    @Html.TextBoxFor(model =&gt; model.Course.Title, new { data_helptext = &quot;Old Text&quot; })&lt;/span&gt;

In a seperate js file, I want to set the `data-helptext` attribute to a string value. Here&#39;s my code:

    alert($(targetField).data(&quot;helptext&quot;));
            
    $(targetField).data(&quot;helptext&quot;, &quot;Testing 123&quot;);

The `alert()` call works fine, it shows the text &quot;Old Text&quot; in an alert dialog. However, the call to set the `data-helptext` attribute to &quot;Testing 123&quot; does not work. &quot;Old Text&quot; is still the attribute&#39;s current value.

Am I using the call to data() incorrectly? I&#39;ve looked this up on the web, and I can&#39;t see what I&#39;m doing wrong.


Here&#39;s the HTML markup:

    &lt;input data-helptext=&quot;Old Text&quot; id=&quot;Course_Title&quot; name=&quot;Course.Title&quot; type=&quot;text&quot; value=&quot;&quot; /&gt;

Unable to set data attribute using jQuery Data() API

I&#39;m in the middle of a large merge, and I&#39;ve used `git mergetool` to resolve all the conflicts, but I have not committed yet, as I wanted to make sure the merge was ok first.

It turns out that I made a mistake while resolving the conflicts in one file, and I would like to redo the conflict resolution with `git mergetool` on that file. As this is a large merge I would like to avoid redoing the merge on all the other files, as I understand I would have to do with `git merge --abort`.

I know I could just edit the file manually, but this would be quite tedious and it would be much easier to just redo the `git mergetool` operation. Is this possible?



Redo merge of just a single file

I'm in the middle of a large merge, and I've used <code>git mergetool</code> to resolve all the conflicts, but I have not committed yet, as I wanted to make sure the merge was ok first.
It turns out that I made a mistake while resolving the conflicts in one file, and I would like to redo the conflict resolution with <code>git mergetool</code> on that file. As this is a large merge I would like to avoid redoing the merge on all the other files, as I understand I would have to do with <code>git merge --abort</code>.
I know I could just edit the file manually, but this would be quite tedious and it would be much easier to just redo the <code>git mergetool</code> operation. Is this possible?

I have a local Git repo that I would like to push to a new remote repo (brand new repo set up on Beanstalk, if that matters).  
My local repo has a few branches and tags, and I would like to keep all of my history.  

It looks like I basically just need to do a `git push`, but that only uploads the `master` branch.  

How do I push everything so I get a full replica of my local repo on the remote?

Push local Git repo to new remote including all branches and tags

After initialising a new local repo there is a `description` file present.

What is it used for and how should I format it? Or is it simply a local helper file.

This thread [Accessing git&#39;s `description&#39; file][1] suggests one style, but no man page or other reference to why it should be the way it is. 

[1]: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/savannah-hackers/2009-03/msg00051.html

what should be in the git description file?

We have branches origin and develop. 
The initial state of master was tagged at `tag_ABC`.

We have few changes made to the develop branch and pushed to origin.
Then we have accidentally merged develop into master and pushed to origin. 

Now we would like to revert master to the checkpoint `tag_ABC`. How can we do that?

How do I revert master branch to a tag in git?

Is there a way to limit `git diff` to changed files?

I&#39;d like to see the differences between two commits, but exclude paths that don&#39;t exist in one or the other (additions/deletions).  The following Perl one-liner illustrates most of what I want:

    git diff master.. | perl -lnwe &#39;print unless /^(new|deleted) file/../^diff/ and not /^diff/&#39;

But that leaves `diff --git a/path b/path` lines for the files that were new or deleted.  Plus it&#39;d be much nicer if I didn&#39;t have to parse (also fails if any hunk contains anything matching /^diff/, for example).

Another alternative I tried was:

    git diff --name-status (args) | perl -lnwe &#39;print if s/^M\s+//&#39; | xargs git diff (args) --

Its output is better, but it still feels hackish.

Filter git diff by type of change

I&#39;ve just installed Git for Windows and am delighted to see that it installs Bash.

I want to customise the shell in the same way I can under Linux (e.g. set up aliases like `ll` for `ls -l`), but I can&#39;t seem to find `.bashrc` or equivalent configuration files.

What should I be editing?


Git for Windows: .bashrc or equivalent configuration files for Git Bash shell

    val map1 = Map(1 -&gt; 9 , 2 -&gt; 20)
    val map2 = Map(1 -&gt; 100, 3 -&gt; 300)

I want to merge them, and sum the values of same keys. So the result will be:

    Map(2-&gt;20, 1-&gt;109, 3-&gt;300)

Now I have 2 solutions:

    val list = map1.toList ++ map2.toList
    val merged = list.groupBy ( _._1) .map { case (k,v) =&gt; k -&gt; v.map(_._2).sum }
    
and

    val merged = (map1 /: map2) { case (map, (k,v)) =&gt;
        map + ( k -&gt; (v + map.getOrElse(k, 0)) )
    }

But I want to know if there are any better solutions.


Best way to merge two maps and sum the values of same key?

I need to merge multiple dictionaries, here&#39;s what I have for instance:

    dict1 = {1:{&quot;a&quot;:{A}}, 2:{&quot;b&quot;:{B}}}

    dict2 = {2:{&quot;c&quot;:{C}}, 3:{&quot;d&quot;:{D}}

With `A` `B` `C` and `D` being leaves of the tree, like `{&quot;info1&quot;:&quot;value&quot;, &quot;info2&quot;:&quot;value2&quot;}`

There is an unknown level(depth) of dictionaries, it could be `{2:{&quot;c&quot;:{&quot;z&quot;:{&quot;y&quot;:{C}}}}}`

In my case it represents a directory/files structure with nodes being docs and leaves being files.

I want to merge them to obtain:

     dict3 = {1:{&quot;a&quot;:{A}}, 2:{&quot;b&quot;:{B},&quot;c&quot;:{C}}, 3:{&quot;d&quot;:{D}}}

I&#39;m not sure how I could do that easily with Python.

How to merge dictionaries of dictionaries?

A [similar question][1] was already asked, but for Ubuntu.

It would help to know if the tool is free as in beer or as in liber.

Also, up and downs of the tool would be nice to know.


  [1]: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/137102/whats-the-best-visual-merge-tool-for-git

What&#39;s a good (free) visual merge tool for Git? (on windows)

Okay. If I&#39;m on a branch (say `working`), and I want to merge in the changes from another branch (say `master`), then I run the command `git-merge master` while on the `working` branch, and the changes get merged in without rebasing the history at all. If I run `git-rebase master`, then the changes in `master` are rebased to be put on the top of my `working` branch. But what if I want to merge in the changes from `master` but rebase my changes in `working` to be on top? How do I do that? Can it be done?

I could run `git-rebase working` on my `master` branch to put my changes on top in the `master` branch, but I&#39;d like to be able to do that in my `working` branch, and I have no idea how. The closest that I can think of doing is creating a new branch from `master` and then rebase `working`&#39;s changes on top of that, but then I&#39;d have a new branch instead of altering the `working` branch.

How do you rebase the current branch&#39;s changes on top of changes being merged in?

Is there any way of simulating a `git merge` between two branches, the current working branch and the master, but without making any changes?

I often have conflicts when I have to make a `git merge`. Is there any way of simulating the merge first?

Content Type	Original Author	Original Content on Stackoverflow
Question	hammar	View Question on Stackoverflow
Solution 1 - Git	hammar	View Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 2 - Git	Šimon Tóth	View Answer on Stackoverflow

Redo merge of just a single file

Git Problem Overview

Git Solutions

Solution 1 - Git

Solution 2 - Git

Unable to set data attribute using jQuery Data() API

Using an RDBMS as event sourcing storage

Attributions