Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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? The current order is the same order that git-rebase uses. I'm not saying its correct, just that its the same as rebase. I think rebase is also backwards and if we change git-stash we should also change git-rebase at the same time (though probably not in the same commit). -- Shawn. - 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
