Conflict resolution or conflict avoidance in GIT? -

questions: how several people meant work git? update-commit usual in svn or merge default? when merging, should appear author of merging commit?

a lot of background information: writing paper on latex guy , using git version control.

from start decided both work on master branch, because anyway 2 people.

i've done number of commits. did commit on old version , merged last version , recent 1 (after commit). easier see picture, here is.

to me it's weird make merge way, if i'm not mistaken should have pulled first , committed, merge should done between 2 different branches.

weirdest of everything, commits not deleted @ point, contents appear new in latest commit , appears author. looks bug, truth don't understand going on here.

so questions are:

is bug?

should using branches work separately? ignoring commits if doesn't push them server anyway.

did use system or should have done pull before committing in svn (update -> commit)?

last, did branch, commit , merge (that's not in picture, yet), , same thing going happen again because master updated , going ignore updates, commit, merge author.

that doesn't right me, don't know whether right or not.

imho: merge should done locally, before pushing updates shared repository, in update-commit fashion.

should using branches work separately?

yes: should have done git pull --rebase (for branch not yet pushed), before pushing changes, @ point have been able merge branch simple fast-forward merge.
see merge vs. rebase , similar blog post.

(from git friend not foe vol. 4: rebasing)

more generally, yes, merge locally before pushing.