Just to note. What I would do, more often than not, is rebase (on an updated master), instead of merge. In particular for a branch in progress which hasn't been submitted yet. It's a "similar" thing, but rebase will reset the working branch to the top of the master, then it will try to re-apply the existing commits of the working branch on top of it, as if it was just created from it.
It ends up with a cleaner history, where if there were conflicts it would be very easy to spot and track if anything is missed (because conflicts wouldn't be on merge commits, they would be on atomic commits, so 'smaller' both during rebase and afterwards in history).

Also rebase would also allow easier to rebase again (to squash commits for example, if wanted.)

Please note, I'm not suggesting to do anything on this PR. It just reminded me of this detail.