From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Rast Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] Documentation: warn prominently against merging with dirty trees Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 13:16:47 +0100 Message-ID: <201001101316.49164.trast@student.ethz.ch> References: <20100110044949.GA8974@progeny.tock> <7vskaefp2v.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jonathan Nieder , To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Jan 10 13:16:57 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1NTwj1-0000DG-Pp for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Sun, 10 Jan 2010 13:16:56 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752580Ab0AJMQv (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Jan 2010 07:16:51 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752309Ab0AJMQv (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Jan 2010 07:16:51 -0500 Received: from gwse.ethz.ch ([129.132.178.237]:7844 "EHLO gwse.ethz.ch" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752018Ab0AJMQv (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Jan 2010 07:16:51 -0500 Received: from CAS00.d.ethz.ch (129.132.178.234) by gws00.d.ethz.ch (129.132.178.237) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.213.0; Sun, 10 Jan 2010 13:16:49 +0100 Received: from thomas.localnet (217.162.250.31) by mail.ethz.ch (129.132.178.227) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.213.0; Sun, 10 Jan 2010 13:16:49 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.0 (Linux/2.6.31.8-0.1-desktop; KDE/4.3.90; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <7vskaefp2v.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> while possible, it leaves you in a state that is hard to > >> +back out of in the case of a conflict. > >> + > > > > Oh, that is a problem. Maybe 'git merge' should refuse to merge > > unless told otherwise, if there is a dirty index and there might be > > conflicts. Actually I'm worried about a dirty *worktree*. Do you think that should be clarified? > "git reset --merge" will keep your local changes after such a merge, and > "mergy" operations (not just "merge" but also "revert", "am -3", etc) > won't get you into a situation where you cannot, by refusing to do > anything when e.g. your index is dirty. Especially when Christian's > "reset --merge" update becomes solid, "... is hard to back out of" will > become a false statement. Does that apply to dirty worktrees, too? I admit I didn't follow that topic at all. -- Thomas Rast trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch