Re: `git stash pop` UX Problem

[David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>]

Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr> writes:

> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> I'd however have to say that even "please resolve the conflicts
>> manually" is over-assuming.
>
> I understand your point, but in a short hint message, I still find it
> reasonable. Fixing conflicts is the natural way to go after a "stash
> pop", and the user who do not want to go this way probably knows why.
>
>> "The stash was not dropped" is the most important thing in your
>> additional text.  How about rephrasing like this?
>>
>>     $ git stash pop
>>     Auto-merging foo.txt
>>     CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in foo.txt
>>
>>     The stashed change could not be replayed cleanly, leaving
>>     conflicts in the working tree. The stash was not dropped in case
>>     you need it again.
>>
>>     After you are done with the stash, you may want to "git stash
>>     drop" to discard it.
>
> I'm fine with this, but it's even longer than mine which I already found
> too long. Perhaps the "leaving conflicts in the working tree" could be
> dropped, as the message follows "CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in
> foo.txt".

All that verbosity...

$ git stash pop
Auto-merging foo.txt
CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in foo.txt
Cowardly refusing to drop stash.
$

-- 
David Kastrup