On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 19:02:33 -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > The idea and the logic are identical to what "checkout -m" does > when switching the branches. Instead of refusing the two-way > merge, perform the three-way merge between the old head, the > working tree and the new head, and leave the (potentially > conflicted) merge result in the working tree. This looks very appealing to me. I know I've often been frustrated when git refuses to fast-forward just because I have dirty state, (and stashing the diff manually into a patch file, then re-applying it after fast forward is really annoying---getting work done in spite of the tool and not because of it). > * I am not sure if this is worth doing in general; it can leave > a huge mess if the conflict with the merge and the local > change is too extensive and does not give a good way to > recover from it, As I said above it seems very reasonable to me. As for the problem you mention here, isn't "no good way to recover from it" the real problem, and not this merge possibility? And is there enough information in the index file such that one could implement a way to recover from this? -Carl
Attachment:
pgpuYK2jcCLte.pgp
Description: PGP signature