On 06/07/13 11:47, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Scott McPeak <smcp...@coverity.com> writes:

I suggest that this problem could easily have been avoided if "git
stash" refused to run with a pending merge (present MERGE_HEAD file),
since this is crucial repository state that it does not save.  This
seems similar to what "git cherry-pick" does.

Sounds senslbe.  What do we want to see happen in other states, in
which Git gives control back to the user asking for help before
moving forward (e.g. am, rebase, cherry-pick, revert)?

If you're asking me, I don't know. My first thought is if there is any pending state that "stash" doesn't save, stash should refuse to run. But I don't know know very much about some of those commands.


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

Reply via email to