git/list[1] front-page[2] threads[3] people[4] search[5] about
 

Re: git-ls-files --unmerged implies --stages: ?

From
Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date
Mar 9, 2006, 18:50 UTC
Message-ID
<7vslpr4fll.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To
<pan.2006.03.09.15.19.03.286472@smurf.noris.de>
Matthias Urlichs <smurf@smurf.noris.de> writes:
Show 7 quoted lines
> I wonder why git-ls-files --unmerged implies --stages. One nice use case
> for this command is to edit all the conflicting files after a failed
> merge, i.e.
>
> $ vi $(git-ls-files --unmerged)
>
> except I need a pipe to throw out all the cruft in there.

I typically use git diff --name-only for this (yes I probably need to uniq them out), but you can certainly talk me into introducing --unmerged --name-only. If nobody objects, even making --unmerged independent from --stages might be a sensible thing to do -- if we do so you would need --unmerged --stages to get the current behaviour.

Previous: Matthias Urlichs
Message 2 of 2 in “git-ls-files --unmerged implies --stages: ?”
  1. Matthias UrlichsMar 9, 2006
  2. Junio C HamanoMar 9, 2006

Read the whole thread, see it on lore, or plain text.

$ cat FOOTERMessages come from the public archive at lore.kernel.org/git, fetched every hour. The front page is chosen and written each morning by an AI editor and can be wrong; the threads themselves are the record. About and API. For agents: an MCP server at https://gitlist.dev/mcp, and any thread, story or person page as Markdown by adding .md to its URL (or sending Accept: text/markdown). Details in /llms.txt.