David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> writes:
> Stephen Leake <stephen_le...@stephe-leake.org> writes:
>> David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> writes:
>>> Stephen Leake <stephen_le...@stephe-leake.org> writes:
>>>> David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> writes:
>>>>> "do the right thing" commands also tend to do the wrong thing
>>>>> occasionally with potentially disastrous results when they are used
>>>>> in scripts where the followup actions rely on the actual result.
>>>> That is bad, and should not be allowed. On the other hand, I have yet
>>>> to see an actual use case of bad behavior in this discussion.
>> That's about backward incompatibility, which is bad, but not what I was
>> talking about above.
> No, it isn't. I quote:
> I sometimes run "git reset" during a merge to only reset the index
> and then examine the changes introduced by the merge. With your
> changes, someone doing so would abort the merge and discard the
> merge resolution. I very rarely do this, but even rarely, I
> wouldn't like Git to start droping data silently for me ;-).
> You should not make statements like "I have yet to see an actual use
> case of bad behavior in this discussion" when you actually mean "I have
> not yet seen anything I would be interested in doing myself".
Clearly I misunderstood your point. Merely repeating the same statement
that I misunderstood, and adding a misunderstanding of what I said, is
So let me see if I can expand on your use case:
- you do 'git merge', which results in conflicts
- you edit some workspace files to resolve some of those conflicts
(I added this step later, since it was implied but not explicit)
- you do 'git reset', intending 'git reset --mixed' (because that is the
Actually, I can't find a precise definition of 'git reset'. Here is
the synopsis from the man page for 'git-reset' (from git 1.7.9):
git reset [-q] [<commit>] [--] <paths>...
git reset (--patch | -p) [<commit>] [--] [<paths>...]
git reset (--soft | --mixed | --hard | --merge | --keep) [-q] [<commit>]
In 'git reset', there is no path, so it must be the second or third
form. But those _require_ one of the -- options. So 'git reset' is
illegal. Clearly something is wrong here; apparently the third line
git reset [--soft | --mixed | --hard | --merge | --keep] [-q] [<commit>]
with '--mixed' as the default, as is stated later. (perhaps the
original intent was to not have a default for the third form, but
that got changed sometime?).
This command "resets the index" but not the working tree. I'm not
clear what "reset the index" means here; does it mean "remove all
entries from the index", or "reset the index to some previous
state"? In other man pages, "reset" can have either meaning
depending on context.
- then you "examine changes introduced by the merge". I don't know what
this means in detail.
Before resetting the index, you could diff a workspace file against
either HEAD or index. Now you can only diff against HEAD, so I don't
understand why you wanted to reset the index. That's not relevant to
this use case; I'll just accept that resetting the index is a useful
thing to do here. But I would like to understand why.
- with the "do the right thing" patch, 'git reset' does 'git reset
That "Resets the index and updates the files in the working tree
that are different between <commit> and HEAD".
"<commit>" in this case defaults to HEAD, so the working tree is
So as I understand it, this does _not_ lose your conflict resolutions.
In fact, it now seems that 'git reset --mixed' is always the same as
'git reset --merge'. So I must be missing something!
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