Re: git merge --abort
- From
John Tapsell <johnflux@gmail.com>
- Date
- Feb 23, 2009, 12:41 UTC
- Message-ID
- <43d8ce650902230441n51c9e5a8h722682cda778aa7a@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <200902211118.32185.jnareb@gmail.com>
2009/2/21 Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>:
Show 17 quoted lines
> On Sat, 21 Feb 2009, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> writes: >> >> > Perhaps this is the case fo "feature that waits for a user", namely >> > 'git stash --no-reset', which would save a state just in case, perhaps >> > in a separate area and not refs/stash (ORIG_STASH perhaps?). >> >> Isn't that Nana's "git stash --keep" patch posted a few weeks ago sitting >> in "pu"? > > Almost exactly. > > When using it as a safety measure (perhaps enabled via configuration > variable, similarly to core.safecrlf or diff.autoRefreshIndex) we would > probably want to not save it in 'refs/stash' stack, but in single-use > ORIG_STATE (similar to HEAD reflog vs. ORIG_HEAD). And of course have > "git merge --abort" (or even "git pull --abort") as a porcelain.
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