On 2017-01-16 05:54 AM, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
Hi Stephan,
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017, Stephan Beyer wrote:
a git-newbie-ish co-worker uses git-stash sometimes. Last time he used
"git stash pop", he got into a merge conflict. After he resolved the
conflict, he did not know what to do to get the repository into the
wanted state. In his case, it was only "git add <resolved files>"
followed by a "git reset" and a "git stash drop", but there may be more
involved cases when your index is not clean before "git stash pop" and
you want to have your index as before.
This led to the idea to have something like "git stash --continue"[1]
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".
M.