From: Karl Hasselström <kha@treskal.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:14:34 GMT
Subject: Re: kha/safe and kha/experimental updated
Message-ID: <20071219171434.GA10652@diana.vm.bytemark.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <200712191723.29591.jnareb@gmail.com>

On 2007-12-19 17:23:27 +0100, Jakub Narebski wrote:

> Karl Hasselström wrote:
>
> >   git checkout-index --stage=1|2|3 <filename>
> >
> > does what you want. But "git cat-file" knows this handy syntax for
> > getting at particular index stages:
> >
> >   :stage:<filename>
>
> I always forget which stage is which. It would be nice if
> git-checkout-index implemented human-friendly names, just like
> git-diff-files has --base, --ours, --theirs, i.e. if it would be
> possible to write
>
>   git checkout-index --stage=base|ours|theirs <filename>
>
> and perhaps even
>
>   :base|ours|theirs:<filename>.
>
> (but there is a problem with files containing ':'...).

<ref>:<path> is already accepted, so I don't think this would be much
worse.

And yes, I agree that the base/ours/theirs aliases are nice, and
should be accepted by at least the porcelain commands.

> > Yes, that's what I want. You and others like what "stg resolved"
> > does, but I don't want it in StGit because it's a generic git
> > enhancement that has nothing to with patch stacks. People who
> > don't use StGit would presumably like it as well.
>
> You mean adding another option to git-add, similar to '-u' option,
> but updating only the files which were (are) in merge conflict;
> '-c'/'-r'/'-s' perhaps?

Yes. That _is_ the operation you want, isn't it?

> This would be replacement for "stg resolved --all", wouldn't it (and
> with filename replacement for "stg resolved <filename>", of course)?

Yes. Though with a filename argument, you wouldn't need the new flag.

-- 
Karl Hasselström, kha@treskal.com
      www.treskal.com/kalle