Re: [RFC] stash --continue

From: Marc Branchaud <marcnarc@xiplink.com>
Date: Jan 18, 2017, 15:41 UTC
Message-ID: <d5456165-bdf2-e9e7-117f-aeab0ff4b417@xiplink.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1701161153340.3469@virtualbox>

On 2017-01-16 05:54 AM, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

Show 16 quoted lines

> Hi Stephan,
>
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2017, Stephan Beyer wrote:
>
>> a git-newbie-ish co-worker uses git-stash sometimes. Last time he used
>> "git stash pop", he got into a merge conflict. After he resolved the
>> conflict, he did not know what to do to get the repository into the
>> wanted state. In his case, it was only "git add <resolved files>"
>> followed by a "git reset" and a "git stash drop", but there may be more
>> involved cases when your index is not clean before "git stash pop" and
>> you want to have your index as before.
>>
>> This led to the idea to have something like "git stash --continue"[1]
>
> More like "git stash pop --continue". Without the "pop" command, it does
> not make too much sense.

Why not? git should be able to remember what stash command created the conflict. Why should I have to? Maybe the fire alarm goes off right when I run the stash command, and by the time I get back to it I can't remember which operation I did. It would be nice to be able to tell git to "just finish off (or abort) the stash operation, whatever it was".

M.