Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Sergey Organov <sorganov@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Isn't --merge a different (and inferior) way to achieve what we already >> have elsewhere with --autostash? Does it make sense to get rid of --merge >> here in favor of --autostash? > > Not really. I tend to disagree. > The "--autostash" might appear to be applicable to cases that can > induce larger conflict, To me (auto)stash is not about amount of possible conflicts, and even not about conflicts at all, but rather about data safety. (Auto)stash is reversible: just get to original branch, apply the stash, and you are basically back where you was. Besides, --autostash shouldn't necessarily even imply --autorestore. I can easily imagine a mode when --autorestore is fired only when one returns to the branch where --autostash has been performed, leaving to the user the responsibility of applying the stash to the new branch, if she really needs it. OTOH, --merge sounds more like infamous "cvs update". Keep fingers crossed (or rather do a backup) and push the button, – Git will do its best not to clobber your content, but all bets are off. > but once the diversion gets larger than what one comfortably can deal > with "checkout -m", The problem is that I suspect there is no such margin. I'm simply uncomfortable with -m. It doesn't sound safe to me no matter what. I'll rather stash manually than use -m. > the user is better off to work by forking a branch there and create a > WIP commit, than deal with the stash. Why? This looks like unjustified complication. All this is temporary enough for the stash proper, – one just forgets about it immediately most of times, as things typically go rather smooth anyway. > So if anything, I'd rather get rid of "--autostash" than "-m", to help > users get in a better work habit. I have as much as 3 points to oppose to this: 1. Who decides which work habit is better? At the same time, data safety and recovery are unprejudiced goals to be aimed at. 2. Unlike --merge, --autostash is universal. Whatever job is to be done, get your changes to a safe place before continuing, to be able get them back later. It'd be excellent if we had global autostash mode support, especially if stash were capable to save/restore entire state of everything. Sounds like "Undo" in text editors, or like automatic backup before OS update. 3. Dunno about --merge, but I'm sure --autostash came from real life. I see it all the time how users do "git stash; git pull; git stash pop" sequence. It's just natural, and if it suits them, who are we to decide what's "better" for them? I believe Git should continue to provide convenient tools that help to get the job done, rather than trying to fight "improper" habits and/or workflows. Overall, to me --autostash is clear winner :) That said, I somehow feel this has been already discussed to death when --autostash was introduced. Thanks, -- Sergey Organov
