Re: [RFC] stash --continue

From: Stephan Beyer <s-beyer@gmx.net>
Date: Jan 18, 2017, 19:20 UTC
Message-ID: <e273c7c8-278a-061c-44fd-4808b53d0475@gmx.net>
In-Reply-To: <d5456165-bdf2-e9e7-117f-aeab0ff4b417@xiplink.com>

Hi,

On 01/18/2017 04:41 PM, Marc Branchaud wrote:

Show 17 quoted lines

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

Dscho and Junio gave you a git-perspective argument. I give you a user-perspective one: What if you did "git stash pop" and ran into an (unexpected) conflict. You resolve it, and you probably - for some reason - don't want to drop the stash now, as "git stash --continue" (assuming "pop") would do. So I'd regard it as a feature if you could now run "git stash apply --continue" to just finish the job without dropping.

Best Stephan

PS: I put this idea in my todo priority queue. If somebody else is
interested: I am not going to work at this idea before February.

PPS: Any opinions about the mentioned "backwards-compatibility" issue
that people are then forced to finish their commits with "--continue"
instead of "git reset" or "git commit"?