From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steven Grimm Subject: Re: git stash apply usability issues Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 07:12:35 -0700 Message-ID: <471769D3.4080908@midwinter.com> References: <47171A21.9030003@viscovery.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Git Mailing List To: Johannes Sixt X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Oct 18 16:12:56 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 1IiW7H-0005zK-Gy for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:12:51 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757410AbXJROMk (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Oct 2007 10:12:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757658AbXJROMk (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Oct 2007 10:12:40 -0400 Received: from tater.midwinter.com ([216.32.86.90]:37244 "HELO midwinter.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1754901AbXJROMj (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Oct 2007 10:12:39 -0400 Received: (qmail 27504 invoked from network); 18 Oct 2007 14:12:39 -0000 Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=200606; d=midwinter.com; b=rAOWyJQZT90BdRsDTWp9M9MHJyGHULIt918hVDvEiGSXBQXWCknW3mR9erQlb/oz ; Received: from localhost (HELO sgrimm-mbp.lan) (koreth@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 18 Oct 2007 14:12:39 -0000 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Macintosh/20070728) In-Reply-To: <47171A21.9030003@viscovery.net> 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? Seems right to me. I'd expect to get the stashed version in the working tree in that case. -Steve