Re: [RFC] stash --continue

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jan 18, 2017, 19:10 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqk29s9oby.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1701181725130.3469@virtualbox>

Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:

Show 10 quoted lines

>> > 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".
>
> That reeks of a big potential for confusion.

Yup. I agree everything you said in the message I am responding to. Marc's argument will inevitably lead to: It should be sufficient to say "git --continue", as Git should remember everything for me. I do not think we want to go there.