This question is related to this one:
When needing to merge a large code base with many conflicts, I would like to have a way to commit progress to be shared across a team of people executing the merge while maintaining the ability to use all our merge tools during the process. We happen to use mercurial, but this is really a general DVCS question.
The process we have chosen to use, but don't like, is that we make a share-drive and divide the work by assigning specific sets of files to individuals or sub-teams. We're all then working live in a "local" but network-shared location, all editing files directly. The only enforcement of good behavior is trust and there's no way to commit and track our progress beyond zipping it all up each evening. In short, our chosen process abandons the benefits of repository management while resolving merge conflicts.
One alternative is to unmark all the files and commit them with the conflicts. But this is disconnects the merge process from the merge tools and resolving conflicts becomes a hand-editing exercise. We've decided this is worse than the above chosen process because it disconnects us from the tools of merge and conflict resolution.
Is there a better way?