From: Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 01:53:34 GMT
Subject: Re: git merge --abort
Message-ID: <200902240253.35470.jnareb@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7vvdr0obuj.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>

Junio C Hamano wrote:
> John Tapsell <johnflux@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > It sounds like we have some sort of plan then.  Will Nana's patch be
> > committed into mainline git?  Then we can add the --abort porcelain
> 
> I do not know what plan you are talking about, but that's not how the
> development works.  If something is merged to 'pu', and you have a cool
> feature you would want to take advantage of it, you can build your cool
> feature on top of that particular topic.  If the result looks reasonable
> they would cook for a while in 'next' for further polishing and then
> finally go to 'mainline'.
> 
> I personally did not think "--keep" would need to be be part of a
> reasonable "merge --abort" implementation, but I may have missed some
> description of a viable design discussed on the list.

My idea was that merge would do the following:

  $ <save stash into MERGE_STASH or similar, no reset>
  $ <do a merge>

Then we have two possibilities:

  # merge failed with conflicts
  $ git merge --abort (would unstash MERGE_STASH and delete it)

  # we created merge conflict
  $ <MERGE_STASH is removed together with MERGE_HEAD>

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland