Matthieu Moy wrote:
> No, you don't. Just try if you're not convinced:

Oh, I trusted the documentation on this one and never tried with a
dirty worktree myself.  Please fix the documentation, if you know how
exactly to correct it.

> No, I'm not proposing to do anything for merge. There's no reason to try
> being uniform in conflict resolution for pull-merge and pull-rebase as
> it is already different now. We already have "git rebase --continue", we
> don't have "git merge --continue". So what? The fact that merge doesn't
> have the equivalent doesn't mean we should not do something for "rebase
> --continue".

Well, you can't blame me for the misunderstanding then.

In a previous email, you wrote:
> Shouldn't this belong to "git merge" instead (i.e. implement "git merge
> --autosquash" and call it from "git pull")? Users doing "git fetch &&
> git merge" by hand should be able to use --autosquash, I think.

Junio's criticism of pull.autostash hurting pull-merge people is
cogent; my current plan is to ditch pull.autostash altogether, and
implement rebase.autostash for the reduced case of a non-interactive
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to