From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Kastrup Subject: Re: `git stash pop` UX Problem Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 21:33:09 +0100 Message-ID: <87ha7l62d6.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <530B0395.5030407@booking.com> <530C953F.9050805@booking.com> <530CA4C9.60601@booking.com> <530D97BA.1080107@booking.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Junio C Hamano , Omar Othman , Brandon McCaig , git@vger.kernel.org To: Matthieu Moy X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Feb 26 21:33:57 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WIlAx-0004eU-Gm for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 21:33:55 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753546AbaBZUdv (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Feb 2014 15:33:51 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([208.118.235.10]:58755 "EHLO fencepost.gnu.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752061AbaBZUdu (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Feb 2014 15:33:50 -0500 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57794 helo=lola) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WIlAp-0002Qb-Ds; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 15:33:47 -0500 Received: by lola (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 42741E9C00; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 21:33:09 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: (Matthieu Moy's message of "Wed, 26 Feb 2014 20:46:44 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Matthieu Moy writes: > Junio C Hamano 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