Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
> Okay, so you're proposing a uniform --autostash feature for both merge
> and rebase. Sorry, I didn't get it last time due to the typos in your
> email; yeah, this is worth investigating.
So, I thought about this and have concluded that pull is the Right
place for autostash because of the following reasons:
0. autostash is purely a convenience function that's useful in simple
reduced cases like a dumb 'git pull'; when the script we're
implementing it for doesn't have a ton of command-line options.
1. git stash; git pull; git stash pop; is a very common idiom. git
stash; git rebase master; git stash pop; is a less common idiom, but I
agree that it is one rebase case where autostash could be useful.
Having git rebase -i show "exec git stash pop" at the end of a
user-editable instruction sheet is less than ideal. Having git rebase
--onto master HEAD~3 do an autostash _might_ be useful, but I'm not
sure about it. git stash; git merge feature-branch; git stash pop; is
not a common idiom at all.
2. git-stash.sh is a helper script, in the same spirit as git-pull.sh
and git-rebase.sh. It is natural and easy to implement autostash for
pull and rebase, but not for a C builtin like merge. In fact, it's
impossible to implement it for merge unless we make git commit execute
git stash pop (yuck!).
If you want, you can implement a rebase.autostash, but that is not my
itch. Considering the gymnastics the implementation would have to do,
I'd be against a merge.autostash. So, again: what is your gripe
against my pull.autostash implementation, apart from the fact that git
status doesn't show stash information? (I _might_ decide to fix this)
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html