Re: [PATCH 2/7] [doc] git-merge: link to new merge conflicts guide

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Oct 3, 2026, 04:12 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqik3jtob2.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <CALnO6CDoMTtyPJyOiXVPSZvFGHgGkFT-u_Qk1km+XYn9BR0OHg@mail.gmail.com>

"D. Ben Knoble" <ben.knoble@gmail.com> writes:

> PS Unlike Junio---perhaps due to my lack of older Git history and
> terminology, despite using Git since 2016?---I would never have read
> "unstaged" as *deleted* from the index. Just changed and not updated
> in the index (i.e., not "git add"-ed).

I agree such an interpretation is certainly possible.

The verb "to unstage" would be the opposite of "to stage", but it is ambiguous what kind of oppositeness you want to express. This is unlike "to stage" whose possible interpretation is fairly narrow. You register the contents that you consider desirable for the path using various means. On the other hand, "to unstage" is undoing the result of your earlier act "to stage", but it may mean reverting to what is recorded in HEAD (i.e., "git reset HEAD -- path"), undoing the fact that you added a path to the index (i.e., "git rm --cached -- path"). Neither interpretation is what you want when talking about what a conflicted merge does to remember the three stages for a conflicted path in the index.

Hence my suggestion to avoid using the verb.