Re: Merge with staged and unstaged changes
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Feb 20, 2013, 22:17 UTC
- Message-ID
- <7vk3q2y6iy.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <A54CE3E330039942B33B670D971F85740396C4F8@TK5EX14MBXC254.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Edward Thomson <ethomson@microsoft.com> writes:
Show 7 quoted lines
> I also appreciate your explanation of the affect of the workdir, > and that makes sense. I would have expected that the default was > to presume the workdir files were existent, rather than the > other way around, but we can agree that is an implementation detail. > > My biggest concern, of course, was having the unstaged files in my > workdir overwritten or deleted.
Oh, no question about that part. You concluded your original message with:
>> I trust the last two cases, where data is lost, are bugs to >> report, but could I get clarification on the other situations?
and I was responding to the part after the "but could I get...".
I am fairly familiar with the "read-tree -m -u O A B" three-way merge codepath (after all I designed that with Linus in the very early days of Git), but I am not as familar with the merge-recursive backend as merge-resolve, and I was hoping to see the "bug" part triaged by other people.