Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >> while possible, it leaves you in a state that is hard to
> >> +back out of in the case of a conflict.
> >> +
> >
> > Oh, that is a problem. Maybe 'git merge' should refuse to merge
> > unless told otherwise, if there is a dirty index and there might be
> > conflicts.
Actually I'm worried about a dirty *worktree*. Do you think that
should be clarified?
> "git reset --merge" will keep your local changes after such a merge, and
> "mergy" operations (not just "merge" but also "revert", "am -3", etc)
> won't get you into a situation where you cannot, by refusing to do
> anything when e.g. your index is dirty. Especially when Christian's
> "reset --merge" update becomes solid, "... is hard to back out of" will
> become a false statement.
Does that apply to dirty worktrees, too? I admit I didn't follow that
topic at all.
--
Thomas Rast
trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html