Re: git merge --abort

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



2009/2/21 Jakub Narebski <jnareb@xxxxxxxxx>:
> On Sat, 21 Feb 2009, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Jakub Narebski <jnareb@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>> > Perhaps this is the case fo "feature that waits for a user", namely
>> > 'git stash --no-reset', which would save a state just in case, perhaps
>> > in a separate area and not refs/stash (ORIG_STASH perhaps?).
>>
>> Isn't that Nana's "git stash --keep" patch posted a few weeks ago sitting
>> in "pu"?
>
> Almost exactly.
>
> When using it as a safety measure (perhaps enabled via configuration
> variable, similarly to core.safecrlf or diff.autoRefreshIndex) we would
> probably want to not save it in 'refs/stash' stack, but in single-use
> ORIG_STATE (similar to HEAD reflog vs. ORIG_HEAD). And of course have
> "git merge --abort" (or even "git pull --abort") as a porcelain.

It sounds like we have some sort of plan then.  Will Nana's patch be
committed into mainline git?  Then we can add the --abort porcelain
--
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

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux