Duy Nguyen <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> 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?). > > We have --force to continue even when we have local changes, which > will be overwritten. I was thinking a similar option which gives us > permission to destroy staged changes. Ah, then that is not "checkout --continue", but "checkout --force -m"? That sounds sensible, and should behave as if "checkout -f HEAD && checkout -m <otherbranch>" was done, with respect to local changes, I would think.
