On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 7:26 PM, Richard Hartmann <richih.mailinglist@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 01:00, Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> and merge conflicts are "resolved" by you running "git add $path" >> after you have finished fixing that path. > > True, git add is an implicit resolving, I did not think about it this way. > Personally, I think that git should break at this point, but that's > just me. > > The obvious fix would be a pre-add hook. Does anyone else think > this would make sense? That would be awesome. I've frequently been bitten by accidentally running "git add" on a file that I *think* I've resolved the conflicts on, but it turns out I missed a commit marker or two. And then the handy conflict-style "git diff" is no longer available, among other things. If "git add" could prevent me from adding the file at all, it might save me some trouble. On the other hand, an even better alternative would be to have a way to "unadd" a file and bring back the conflict information, but I don't know how that would really work. Have fun, Avery -- 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
