Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> writes: >> > More like "git stash pop --continue". Without the "pop" command, it >> > does not make too much sense. >> >> Why not? git should be able to remember what stash command created the >> conflict. Why should I have to? Maybe the fire alarm goes off right when I >> run the stash command, and by the time I get back to it I can't remember >> which operation I did. It would be nice to be able to tell git to "just >> finish off (or abort) the stash operation, whatever it was". > > That reeks of a big potential for confusion.
Yup. I agree everything you said in the message I am responding to. Marc's argument will inevitably lead to: It should be sufficient to say "git --continue", as Git should remember everything for me. I do not think we want to go there.
