Re: `git stash pop` UX Problem

From: Matthieu Moy <matthieu.moy@grenoble-inp.fr>
Date: Feb 26, 2014, 19:46 UTC
Message-ID: <vpqy50xd5cr.fsf@anie.imag.fr>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqd2i94qfq.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>

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

> I'd however have to say that even "please resolve the conflicts
> manually" is over-assuming.

I understand your point, but in a short hint message, I still find it reasonable. Fixing conflicts is the natural way to go after a "stash pop", and the user who do not want to go this way probably knows why.

Show 13 quoted lines

> "The stash was not dropped" is the most important thing in your
> additional text.  How about rephrasing like this?
>
>     $ git stash pop
>     Auto-merging foo.txt
>     CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in foo.txt
>
>     The stashed change could not be replayed cleanly, leaving
>     conflicts in the working tree. The stash was not dropped in case
>     you need it again.
>
>     After you are done with the stash, you may want to "git stash
>     drop" to discard it.

I'm fine with this, but it's even longer than mine which I already found too long. Perhaps the "leaving conflicts in the working tree" could be dropped, as the message follows "CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in foo.txt".

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