Re: Better cooperation between checkouts and stashing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 15:20, Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
> How is this use case different from the other?

The other use case is the one that git already assumes to be popular:
People want local modifications to remain in place across branch
checkouts.

> Which "problem" have you got in mind?

The "git checkout" command is designed to carry local modifications
across branches transparently; when it's not so clear that such
transparency is possible, "git checkout" refuses to continue unless
the "-m" flag is used to try a 3-way merge involving:

  * the local modifications.
  * the files in the branch being left.
  * the files in the branch being checked out.

This 3-way merge can get tricky if it ends in conflict, and so a smart
use of the stash in this process might help users untangle themselves.

That is what Junio has been thinking about in this thread.
--
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

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]