Matthieu Moy <matthieu....@grenoble-inp.fr> writes:
> Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> writes:
>> I'd however have to say that even "please resolve the conflicts
>> manually" is over-assuming.
> I understand your point, but in a short hint message, I still find it
> reasonable. Fixing conflicts is the natural way to go after a "stash
> pop", and the user who do not want to go this way probably knows why.
>> "The stash was not dropped" is the most important thing in your
>> additional text. How about rephrasing like this?
>> $ git stash pop
>> Auto-merging foo.txt
>> CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in foo.txt
>> The stashed change could not be replayed cleanly, leaving
>> conflicts in the working tree. The stash was not dropped in case
>> you need it again.
>> After you are done with the stash, you may want to "git stash
>> drop" to discard it.
> I'm fine with this, but it's even longer than mine which I already found
> too long. Perhaps the "leaving conflicts in the working tree" could be
> dropped, as the message follows "CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in
All that verbosity...
$ git stash pop
CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in foo.txt
Cowardly refusing to drop stash.
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