Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] reset: add option "--merge-safe" to "git reset"

From: Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@viscovery.net>
Date: Sep 17, 2009, 13:05 UTC
Message-ID: <4AB23410.6080508@viscovery.net>
In-Reply-To: <c07716ae0909170512k3c2ec7m21e69e9acfdfd81f@mail.gmail.com>

Christian Couder schrieb:

Show 15 quoted lines

> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@viscovery.net> wrote:
>> Junio C Hamano schrieb:
>>> Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@viscovery.net> writes:
>>  $ git stash
>>  $ git reset --hard $target
>>  $ git stash pop
>>
>>> I have _no_ idea what the intended use-case of --merge-safe is, and that
>>> was why I asked Christian for clarification in the previous round.  The
>>> answer was still not clear enough so I pointed out --merge-safe could be
>>> still doing a wrong thing even in _his_ use-case.
>> Reading Christian in 200909170554.49416.chriscool@tuxfamily.org, I think
>> this *is* his use-case? Christian?
> 
> Yes, I agree, it can be used instead of git stash.

It "can"? Do you say that you intend --merge-safe for something else in addition to the above stash + reset --hard + stash pop sequence? What?

> By the way Linus, in his
> patch that added the --merge option, said that --merge could be used like
> that.

But that use-case has one important difference: You can't use stash right before the reset:

   # work tree is dirty
   $ git pull $there $topic  # assume we have conflicts

   # investigate result ...
   # oh no, that's crap, scratch it

   $ git stash what? conflicted changes?
   $ git reset what? --hard would remove my dirty state, too

You are screwed. 'git reset --merge' comes to rescue.

I'm pretty sure you don't mean --merge-safe to provide extra safety in *this* use-case, but that you have a very different use-case in mind.

-- Hannes