Someone from the product team at Gitlab needs to look at issue 35054 (opens in new tab)

I can kinda understand GitLab's reasoning (correct me if I'm wrong): if the conflict resolution needs to happen on the destination branch and the PR author has no permission to directly commit into the destination branch, then there is no way for the PR author to resolve the conflict themselves at all.

Could GitLab adopt a middle-ground approach? Automatically create a new branch where the conflict resolution will happen, so that the feature branch remains untouched, causing fewer unpleasant surprises to the PR author.

It is completely non-intuitive UX which is causing a lot of people issues. Merging branches is the bread and butter of GIT, if you are changing a fundamental primitive (mergers) of how a technology is expected to work, by reversing the direction of the merge request (opposite to the direction provided explicitly by the user) without warning that is a major issue.

Thanks for sharing. The issue in question has been closed, and the discussion on changing the behaviour and improving the UX happens in

- Manually resolve conflicts in merge commit on the target branch: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/25014

- Add in application explanation of what Resolve Conflicts is doing: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/25003

I've added that as a comment to https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss/-/issues/35054#not...

The complete radio silence from Gitlab's team over an issue this serious _over a 3 year period_ compels me to maintain my distance from their product.

Personally, I think, the merge requests UX in Gitlab ar mediocre compared to GitHub.

The diffs are hard to read because the way render differences. Also it's hard to spot when your merge request has merge conflicts. Could be way more clearly marked.

Also really wish they had similar bot and checks supports like GitHub has.