From: Jay Soffian <jaysoffian@gmail.com>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
John Dlugosz <JDlugosz@tradestation.com>,
git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Files different for me
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:16:25 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <76718490902251116l12e7d3c5jb42657cb0432ae40@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7v4oyi2vvf.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> The handling of a case where a pull decides to go ahead (because it does
> not have to touch the Makefile you have your codename updates in) but does
> not complete with real conflicts, is not as graceful as the other two
> cases (merge refusing to run at all without touching anything, or merge
> completes cleanly and makes a commit).
>
> You will be left with:
>
> - Paths that have local changes (index matches HEAD but work tree does
> not match the index --- like your Makefile);
>
> - Paths cleanly merged (index and HEAD are different but work tree
> already matches the index);
>
> - Unmerged paths (index has higher stage entries with <<</===/>>> files
> in the work tree);
>
> You, I and experienced users know what to do. Deal *only* with the last
> kind, mark them with "git add" after you are done with each of them, and
> make sure you do not say "-a" when committing the result, to exclude the
> first kind from the merge result.
>
> I've been wondering if we can make this safer for others.
Have pull detect this case and stash if so, with a message to the user
to pop the stash after they have committed the merge results? Or would
it make more sense to do it in merge? Maybe a pre-merge hook?
j.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-02-25 19:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-02-25 16:11 Files different for me John Dlugosz
[not found] ` <16946e800902250840o677f8708x7c0bf8980e004b91@mail.gmail.com>
2009-02-25 16:42 ` Feanil Patel
2009-02-25 17:05 ` Brian Gernhardt
2009-02-25 18:02 ` John Dlugosz
2009-02-25 18:38 ` Brian Gernhardt
2009-02-25 19:01 ` John Dlugosz
2009-02-25 18:44 ` Matthieu Moy
2009-02-25 17:55 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-02-25 18:04 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-02-25 18:51 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-02-25 19:12 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-02-25 20:06 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-02-25 20:14 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-02-25 19:16 ` Jay Soffian [this message]
2009-02-25 19:38 ` John Dlugosz
2009-02-25 19:23 ` John Dlugosz
2009-02-25 20:04 ` Junio C Hamano
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=76718490902251116l12e7d3c5jb42657cb0432ae40@mail.gmail.com \
--to=jaysoffian@gmail.com \
--cc=JDlugosz@tradestation.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).