From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DA211F89C for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 19:10:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752178AbdARTKN (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Jan 2017 14:10:13 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:57090 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751479AbdARTKM (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Jan 2017 14:10:12 -0500 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95ECB5F4B0; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 14:10:11 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=VnoMPm3aLiiqNARPRE44ozTtBxw=; b=GXLgg1 RlZj1Kh4ksZ95Fc89mDdUi9miDiduyHQDL6VRya/L1DU/BXQeRLe68K7Kus17Y3K 9+L0CX/KuhQs9MyqSxMMM4RLxxR4/PtUVerzhP4v6cnvT5Mx2J51YQzHXTvsa8lm l5ynCkMy8Oy8qrd/JLC6TjjA2FbCWi4UhIF3c= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=U8YYIFxoNg+WkvA1jJM0yxE2N+NREr29 diBkNA9sMk8Aj5VWG+5/hbDsE0lXlX5LShRsZprrTACTBz9piBeNLsNisZHuVjtW 3u+qhdBCpTXLSA2SgauRC0/9Lrv1mcixaGSN1sy9Ju25ffvjHWJQJYQ7na/11QlV kRfZB1LL+JU= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B6D85F4AF; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 14:10:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D16915F4A8; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 14:10:10 -0500 (EST) From: Junio C Hamano To: Johannes Schindelin Cc: Marc Branchaud , Stephan Beyer , git Subject: Re: [RFC] stash --continue References: Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 11:10:09 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Johannes Schindelin's message of "Wed, 18 Jan 2017 17:34:58 +0100 (CET)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.90 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: BBAB15DE-DDB1-11E6-982D-A7617B1B28F4-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Johannes Schindelin writes: >> > More like "git stash pop --continue". Without the "pop" command, it >> > does not make too much sense. >> >> Why not? git should be able to remember what stash command created the >> conflict. Why should I have to? Maybe the fire alarm goes off right when I >> run the stash command, and by the time I get back to it I can't remember >> which operation I did. It would be nice to be able to tell git to "just >> finish off (or abort) the stash operation, whatever it was". > > That reeks of a big potential for confusion. Yup. I agree everything you said in the message I am responding to. Marc's argument will inevitably lead to: It should be sufficient to say "git --continue", as Git should remember everything for me. I do not think we want to go there.