From: Matthieu Moy <matthieu.moy@grenoble-inp.fr>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 10:58:22 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] pull: introduce --[no-]autostash and pull.autostash
Message-ID: <vpqbo9gqcvl.fsf@grenoble-inp.fr>
In-Reply-To: <7vbo9g15po.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

> Yes, that is why I said for pull-merge, --authsquash is neutral-to-better
> and pull.autosquash is harmful.

To speak from my experience: I find myself typing "git stash && git pull
&& git stash pop" relatively often. Typical use-case: I start working on
something, a colleague works on the same thing and I need to see what he
did to continue. Probably not something so frequent for large projects,
but very frequent for small projects (e.g. writing a paper together with
a single .tex file and the deadline approaching). In this case, "git
pull --rebase" makes sense for advanced enough users, but newbies who
have been told "rebase is too dangerous for you, don't use it", it would
be cool to have --autostash too.

I tend to agree that pull.autostash is harmful. At least in its current
form, it is really too easy to overlook the "Please run 'git stash pop'
after commiting the conflict resolution." message:

<do some important changes>
$ git pull
<fix conflicts>
$ git status
<tells me to commit>
$ git commit
<WTF, where are my important changes?!?>

rebase wouldn't have this issue if "stash pop" is part of the sequence
to apply.

-- 
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/