title: Resolving conflicts results in no changes added
body: <p>Let's say I have a <code>master</code> branch, and a <code>feature-a</code> branch. <code>feature-a</code> is up for review but everyone is busy. I need to start <code>feature-b</code> but <code>feature-b</code> is dependent on code done in <code>feature-a</code>.</p>
  
  <p>So up until now I've been branching <code>feature-b</code> from <code>feature-a</code> , and then merging down any changes that might happen to <code>feature-a</code>.</p>
  
  <p>Now let's say someone gets freed up, and passes <code>feature-a</code>, therefore <code>feature-a</code> gets merged into <code>master</code>.</p>
  
  <p>Now it's time to sync <code>feature-b</code> with <code>master</code>. Whether I rebase or merge <code>master</code> down to <code>feature-b</code>, often I end up with conflicts that, when resolved, result in no changes to commit, which means I can't commit.</p>
  
  <p>I've done some googling and literally the only viable solution seems to be:</p>
  
  <ol>
  <li>Merge master into feature-b causing merge conflicts.</li>
  <li>Make another change mid-resolve (e.g. a comment or something)</li>
  <li>Resolve the conflicts (leading to only one change, the comment) </li>
  <li>Commit</li>
  </ol>
  
  <p>This seems bonkers to me :thinking_face:</p>
  
  <p>Does anyone know of a better way of resolving the conflicts/managing my branches in the above situation?</p>