Johannes Sixt wrote:
(2) when 'git stash apply' runs merge-recursive, it treats the current
state as 'ours' and the stash as 'theirs'. IMHO it should be the other
way round: I have stashed away changes to a binary file. Then
committed a different modification to it, and now want to apply the
stash. This results in a conflict that leaves the current state in the
working tree, but I had preferred that the stashed binary file were in
the working tree now.
What do other git-stash users think about changing the order?
Seems right to me. I'd expect to get the stashed version in the working
tree in that case.
-Steve
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
