King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > I think we would do better to tell the user about stash there, so they > can do it themselves. Then they know where their changes went and how to > get them back. Since v1.6.5.5, this error message now says: > > Your local changes to '%s' would be overwritten by merge. Aborting. > Please, commit your changes or stash them before you can merge. > > What version of git are you using? If you (or others you are helping) > saw that message and it wasn't helpful, do you have any suggestions for > how to improve it? Yes we have the latest version and we do see this message. This helps a bit. Although for people used to CVS/CVN the "stash" is yet another thing to learn. There is also a high probability for new users to see this message very early when using git and the question is always the same: why can't git just merge with my files and show me the conflict? (There was also some usability issues with the "stash", I remember people loosing _untracked_ files but I am not sure if that was PEBKAC. First versions of stash had a very friendly syntax that punished you by obliterating your files if you made a typo and some are still traumatized.) Simply put: in git, your working directory is a second class citizen and git doesn't want to deal with it. Fundamentally, this is in a collision course with what some users think about their work in progress. I started a similar discussion had a couple years ago: http://lists-archives.org/git/635926-git-pull-opinion.html Back then, I was certain that 'git pull' should have an option to mix with a dirty tree but now, after a couple years of using the tool, I am not certain anymore. I am just reporting the biggest frustrations I see with new users. Thanks, -- aghiles -- 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