Re: [PATCH 3/3] pull: introduce --[no-]autostash and pull.autostash
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:38:20PM +0530, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
Show 21 quoted lines
> Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > If "rebase -m" were to be taught to do this, the natural way to do
> > so is to
> >
> > (1) Prepare the todo the usual way
> > (2) Do those two commits for index and working tree
> > (3) Append two insns (exec reset HEAD^ and exec reset --soft
> > HEAD^) at the end of the rebase todo file.
>
> Er, no. I don't want to touch the instruction sheet. It becomes
> especially problematic in -i, when the instruction sheet is
> user-editable.
>
> > "rebase--am" could also be told to generate (on the preparation
> > side) and notice (on the application side) a pair of patch files at
> > the end that represent the index state and the working tree state
> > and apply them without making the WIP part into a commit.
>
> Ugh, no. I don't want to leak the implementation detail of autostash
> into specific rebases. Why can't I wrap the last statment in
> git-rebase.sh in git stash/ git stash pop like I did with git-pull.sh?
How does that work with the following:
- run_specific_rebase fails, so the user needs to fix it up and then run
"git rebase --continue". We don't want to pop the stash in this case.
- the user runs "git rebase --continue" with staged changes, knowing the
git-rebase will commit those. We don't want to create a stash in this
case since it will remove the changes the user wants to commit.
John Keeping <john@keeping.me.uk>