On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 11:47:07AM -0700, 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)?

I don't think there's any need to prevent stash running in these cases
and I sometimes find it useful that I can stash during a rebase.

Having said that, I wonder what happens with "cherry-pick -x" if you do
stash changes while it is stopped.  I don't think that is as serious as
the merge case because it's easy to detect in the commit message.
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