Re: [PATCH 3/3] pull: introduce --[no-]autostash and pull.autostash
- From
Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
- Date
- Apr 15, 2013, 16:45 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CALkWK0nrVZo3MSgqpPmX2+T3JJ8uP=hzH3PMv+qd4ZaqNVwEsw@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <vpqwqs3lqlf.fsf@grenoble-inp.fr>
Matthieu Moy wrote:
> No, you don't. Just try if you're not convinced:
Oh, I trusted the documentation on this one and never tried with a dirty worktree myself. Please fix the documentation, if you know how exactly to correct it.
Show 6 quoted lines
> No, I'm not proposing to do anything for merge. There's no reason to try > being uniform in conflict resolution for pull-merge and pull-rebase as > it is already different now. We already have "git rebase --continue", we > don't have "git merge --continue". So what? The fact that merge doesn't > have the equivalent doesn't mean we should not do something for "rebase > --continue".
Well, you can't blame me for the misunderstanding then.
In a previous email, you wrote:
> Shouldn't this belong to "git merge" instead (i.e. implement "git merge > --autosquash" and call it from "git pull")? Users doing "git fetch && > git merge" by hand should be able to use --autosquash, I think.
Junio's criticism of pull.autostash hurting pull-merge people is cogent; my current plan is to ditch pull.autostash altogether, and implement rebase.autostash for the reduced case of a non-interactive rebase.