From: John Keeping <john@keeping.me.uk>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 08:30:19 GMT
Subject: Re: git stash while pending merge should not be allowed
Message-ID: <20130614083018.GD23890@serenity.lan>
In-Reply-To: <7v1u8du5as.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 11:47:07AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Scott McPeak <smcpeak@coverity.com> writes:
> 
> > I suggest that this problem could easily have been avoided if "git
> > stash" refused to run with a pending merge (present MERGE_HEAD file),
> > since this is crucial repository state that it does not save.  This
> > seems similar to what "git cherry-pick" does.
> 
> Sounds senslbe.  What do we want to see happen in other states, in
> which Git gives control back to the user asking for help before
> moving forward (e.g. am, rebase, cherry-pick, revert)?

I don't think there's any need to prevent stash running in these cases
and I sometimes find it useful that I can stash during a rebase.

Having said that, I wonder what happens with "cherry-pick -x" if you do
stash changes while it is stopped.  I don't think that is as serious as
the merge case because it's easy to detect in the commit message.