Resolving GitHub conflict: merge, rebase and fast-forward only

Difference between:

hint: git config pull.rebase false # merge
hint: git config pull.rebase true # rebase
hint: git config pull.ff only #

I'll explain the three git pull strategies and help you choose the best one for your situation:

Updated todo list

Three Git Pull Strategies Explained

1. pull.rebase false (Merge Strategy) 🔀

git config pull.rebase false
What it does:

Creates a merge commit when pulling changes
Combines your local commits with remote commits
Preserves full history of both branches
Visual:

Before pull:  Local:  A — B — C  Remote: A — X — YAfter pull:  A — B — C — M (merge commit)       \   /        X — Y
Pros:
✅ Full history preserved
✅ Easy to see when integrations happened
✅ Safe for collaborative work

Cons:
❌ Messy commit graph with many merge commits
❌ Harder to read git log

1. pull.rebase true (Rebase Strategy) 📚

git config pull.rebase true
What it does:

Replays your local commits on top of remote changes
Creates a linear history (no merge commits)
Rewrites commit history
Visual:

Before pull:  Local:  A — B — C  Remote: A — X — YAfter pull:  A — X — Y — B' — C'
Pros:
✅ Clean, linear history
✅ Easier to read and understand flow
✅ No merge commit clutter

Cons:
❌ Rewrites history (changes commit hashes)
❌ Can cause issues if commits are already pushed
⚠️ Slightly risky if you don't understand rebase

1. pull.ff only (Fast-Forward Only) ⚡

git config pull.ff only
What it does:

Only allows fast-forward merges (linear history without new commits)
Rejects any pull that would require a merge or rebase
Forces you to manually resolve conflicts
Visual:

✅ ALLOWED (fast-forward):  

Local:  A — B — C  
Remote: A — B — C — X — Y  
Result: A — B — C — X — Y❌ 

REJECTED (non-fast-forward):  
Local:  A — B — C  
Remote: A — X — Y  → Pull fails! You must rebase or merge manually

Pros:
✅ Guarantees clean, linear history
✅ Forces intentional conflict resolution
✅ No accidental messy merges

Cons:
❌ Very strict; many pulls will fail
❌ Requires extra manual steps
❌ Not ideal for team collaboration

📊 Comparison Table
Feature merge rebase ff only
History shape Non-linear (branchy) Linear Linear
Merge commits

✅ Created
❌ None

❌ None

Rewrites commits

❌ No

✅ Yes Depends

Easy to read git log

❌ No

✅ Yes
✅ Yes

Safe for shared branches

✅ Yes
❌ No

✅ Yes

Risk of conflicts Low Medium High
Best for teams

✅ Yes
❌ Not really

✅ Sometimes

🎯 Recommendation for Your Situation
For resolving your current merge conflict in api-docs.json:

Use pull.rebase false (Merge) ← RECOMMENDED

git config pull.rebase false
Why?

✅ You're working in a team repo (hngprojects/HNG-Portal-BE)
✅ Your commits are likely already shared/pushed
✅ Safe - doesn't rewrite history
✅ Preserves the full narrative of changes
✅ Standard practice for collaborative projects

Your next steps:

1. Resolve the conflict manually in api-docs.json (You need to combine the auth endpoints + job-types endpoints)

2. Stage the resolved filegit add storage/api-docs/api-docs.json

3. Complete the mergegit commit -m "Merge: resolve conflicts in api-docs.json - combine auth and job-types endpoints"# 4. Push to remotegit push origin feature/add-job-types

Would you like me to:

✅ Help you resolve the conflicts in the file manually?
📝 Generate a merged version of api-docs.json with both sets of endpoints?
🔍 Review what content exists in each branch first?
Let me know which you prefer!