Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 7:50 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Duy Nguyen <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > Kinda. But "--force --merge" makes no sense. --force discards all >> > local changes by definition, which means you can't have conflicts and >> > will not need --merge. I think this is the reason why we die() out >> > when both are specified. So we need something like >> > --discard-staged-changes-only... >> >> At that point, I would have to say that we do not need anything. >> The use case is already covered with "git reset && git checkout -m", >> isn't it? > > I guess the problem is just that 'git checkout -m' has not refused to > run with either a dirty index or a dirty working tree, and if both are > dirty (making us require more of a four-way merge), then our three-way > merge has to ... I didn't actually mean "nothing to do here" relative to the current code; instead, I meant "nothing more than just stop when the index has updates" (which is hard to read from the above quoted part, as "Kinda." is a response in a discussion started with my "checkout -m should probably refuse to do anything when the index is dirty"). > So, I think we do need something (eventually at least). Would you > prefer we dropped this patch from Duy and instead made 'checkout -m' > abort when the index is dirty? Let's go with the doc update first, as the patch has already written. I think in the longer term, just aborting when the index is dirty would be a vast improvement over the status quo + a doc update and is a good place to stop. Thanks.
