From: Shawn O. Pearce Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 01:31:56 GMT Subject: Re: git stash apply usability issues Message-ID: <20071019013156.GU14735@spearce.org> In-Reply-To: <47171A21.9030003@viscovery.net> Johannes Sixt wrote: > (2) when 'git stash apply' runs merge-recursive, it treats the current > state as 'ours' and the stash as 'theirs'. IMHO it should be the other way > round: I have stashed away changes to a binary file. Then committed a > different modification to it, and now want to apply the stash. This results > in a conflict that leaves the current state in the working tree, but I had > preferred that the stashed binary file were in the working tree now. > > What do other git-stash users think about changing the order? The current order is the same order that git-rebase uses. I'm not saying its correct, just that its the same as rebase. I think rebase is also backwards and if we change git-stash we should also change git-rebase at the same time (though probably not in the same commit). -- Shawn.