Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > If you have staged changes in path A and perform 'checkout > --merge' (which could result in conflicts in a totally unrelated path > B), changes in A will be gone. Which is unexpected. We are supposed > to keep all changes, or kick and scream otherwise. > > This is the result of how --merge is implemented, from the very first > day in 1be0659efc (checkout: merge local modifications while switching > branches., 2006-01-12): > > 1. a merge is done, unmerged entries are collected > 2. a hard switch to a new branch is done, then unmerged entries added > back > > There is no trivial fix for this. Going with 3-way merge one file at a > time loses rename detection. Going with 3-way merge by trees requires > teaching the algorithm to pick up staged changes. And even if we detect > staged changes with --merge and abort for safety, an option to continue > --merge is very weird. Such an option would keep worktree changes, but > drop staged changes. I think "checkout -m <otherbranch>" with a dirty index should refuse to run; there is nothing to "continue" after such a failure, so I am not sure what you mean by "an option to continue" (iow, I do not see a need for such an option, and if that option makes the whole notion strange, we can just decide not to have it, can't we?).
