Re: git merge --abort

[Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>]

Junio C Hamano wrote::
> Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> writes:
>> Junio C Hamano wrote:

>>> I personally did not think "--keep" would need to be be part of a
>>> reasonable "merge --abort" implementation, but I may have missed some
>>> description of a viable design discussed on the list.

First, a description of state: here we assume that you have changes to
tracked files in working area that are neither in HEAD, nor in index,
and that you can have changes in index which are neither in HEAD nor
in working area.

If HEAD == index == working area then stashing is not necessary.

>> My idea was that merge would do the following:
>>
>>   $ <save stash into MERGE_STASH or similar, no reset>
>>   $ <do a merge>
>>
>> Then we have two possibilities:
>>
>>   # merge failed with conflicts
>>   $ git merge --abort (would unstash MERGE_STASH and delete it)
> 
> Here "would unstash" needs to follow something else, namely, make your
> work tree free of local changes.  How?  "reset --hard"?

Yes. "git merge --abort" would be equivalent to

  $ git reset --hard ORIG_HEAD
  $ git stash pop --ref=MERGE_STASH
  $ rm $GIT_DIR/MERGE_STASH

> 
>>   # we created merge conflict
>>   $ <MERGE_STASH is removed together with MERGE_HEAD>
> 
> You mean "created a merge without conflict", right?  That part is easy to
> guess and understand.

Yes. I meant here: "created merge _commit_" (not "conflict").

> 
> In fact, when you run more than one strategies, something similar to this
> already happens internally.  The C version may be harder to follow, but
> you can check the last scripted version contrib/examples/git-merge.sh and
> find two functions, savestate/restorestate pair, that does exactly that.
> 
> It way predates --keep patch, by the way.

Well, we have "git reset --merge ORIG_HEAD" which from what I understand
does at least part of "git merge --abort", but I am not sure if it
covers all cases (like dirty index in addition to dirty tree).

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland