Hi, On 01/18/2017 04:41 PM, Marc Branchaud wrote: > On 2017-01-16 05:54 AM, Johannes Schindelin wrote: >> 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? Dscho and Junio gave you a git-perspective argument. I give you a user-perspective one: What if you did "git stash pop" and ran into an (unexpected) conflict. You resolve it, and you probably - for some reason - don't want to drop the stash now, as "git stash --continue" (assuming "pop") would do. So I'd regard it as a feature if you could now run "git stash apply --continue" to just finish the job without dropping. Best Stephan PS: I put this idea in my todo priority queue. If somebody else is interested: I am not going to work at this idea before February. PPS: Any opinions about the mentioned "backwards-compatibility" issue that people are then forced to finish their commits with "--continue" instead of "git reset" or "git commit"?