From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 18:50:46 GMT
Subject: Re: git-ls-files --unmerged implies --stages: ?
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:

> 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.