Re: git stash apply usability issues

["Shawn O. Pearce" <spearce@spearce.org>]

Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@viscovery.net> wrote:
> (2) when 'git stash apply' runs merge-recursive, it treats the current 
> state as 'ours' and the stash as 'theirs'. IMHO it should be the other way 
> round: I have stashed away changes to a binary file. Then committed a 
> different modification to it, and now want to apply the stash. This results 
> in a conflict that leaves the current state in the working tree, but I had 
> preferred that the stashed binary file were in the working tree now.
> 
> What do other git-stash users think about changing the order?

The current order is the same order that git-rebase uses.  I'm not
saying its correct, just that its the same as rebase.  I think rebase
is also backwards and if we change git-stash we should also change
git-rebase at the same time (though probably not in the same commit).

-- 
Shawn.