From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Shawn O. Pearce" Subject: Re: git stash apply usability issues Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 21:31:56 -0400 Message-ID: <20071019013156.GU14735@spearce.org> References: <47171A21.9030003@viscovery.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Git Mailing List To: Johannes Sixt X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Oct 19 03:32:21 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Iigij-0001C6-C6 for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Fri, 19 Oct 2007 03:32:13 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759534AbXJSBcB (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Oct 2007 21:32:01 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759415AbXJSBcB (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Oct 2007 21:32:01 -0400 Received: from corvette.plexpod.net ([64.38.20.226]:41580 "EHLO corvette.plexpod.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758923AbXJSBcA (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Oct 2007 21:32:00 -0400 Received: from [74.70.48.173] (helo=asimov.home.spearce.org) by corvette.plexpod.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1IigiF-0004vw-K0; Thu, 18 Oct 2007 21:31:43 -0400 Received: by asimov.home.spearce.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id DABD120FBAE; Thu, 18 Oct 2007 21:31:56 -0400 (EDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <47171A21.9030003@viscovery.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - corvette.plexpod.net X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - vger.kernel.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - spearce.org Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Johannes Sixt 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.