{"thread":{"id":"3611","subject":"git-ls-files --unmerged implies --stages: ?","startedAt":"2006-03-09T15:19:03Z","lastAt":"2006-03-09T18:50:46Z","messageCount":2,"participants":["Matthias Urlichs","Junio C Hamano"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"17378","messageId":"pan.2006.03.09.15.19.03.286472@smurf.noris.de","threadId":"3611","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"git-ls-files --unmerged implies --stages: ?","fromName":"Matthias Urlichs","fromEmail":"smurf@smurf.noris.de","sentAt":"2006-03-09T15:19:03Z","receivedAt":"2006-03-09T15:19:03Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"matthias@urlichs.de","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/2708905af227313eba6f2b2ae0f7d0259b5ac5d71baef58fe5a13c699ce0bbf0?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"Hi,\n\nI wonder why git-ls-files --unmerged implies --stages. One nice use case\nfor this command is to edit all the conflicting files after a failed\nmerge, i.e.\n\n$ vi $(git-ls-files --unmerged)\n\nexcept I need a pipe to throw out all the cruft in there.\n\nDoes anybody depend on that implication, or do I need to add a \"no-stages\"\noption, or am I blind and there's a better way to do this?\n\n-- \nMatthias Urlichs\n"},{"id":"17393","messageId":"7vslpr4fll.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net","threadId":"3611","inReplyTo":"pan.2006.03.09.15.19.03.286472@smurf.noris.de","subject":"Re: git-ls-files --unmerged implies --stages: ?","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"junkio@cox.net","sentAt":"2006-03-09T18:50:46Z","receivedAt":"2006-03-09T18:50:46Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Matthias Urlichs <smurf@smurf.noris.de> writes:\n\n> I wonder why git-ls-files --unmerged implies --stages. One nice use case\n> for this command is to edit all the conflicting files after a failed\n> merge, i.e.\n>\n> $ vi $(git-ls-files --unmerged)\n>\n> except I need a pipe to throw out all the cruft in there.\n\nI typically use git diff --name-only for this (yes I probably\nneed to uniq them out), but you can certainly talk me into\nintroducing --unmerged --name-only.  If nobody objects, even\nmaking --unmerged independent from --stages might be a sensible\nthing to do -- if we do so you would need --unmerged --stages to\nget the current behaviour.\n"}]}