Andrew Wong andrew.k...@gmail.com writes:
During a merge, --mixed is most likely not what the user wants. Using
--mixed during a merge would leave the merged changes and new files
mixed in with the local changes. The user would have to manually clean
up the work tree, which is non-trivial. In
On 14-03-14 04:55 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
So I am OK with eventually error out by default, but not OK with
we know better than the user and will not allow it at all.
Can I interpret that as you being OK with my proposed Cowardly
refusing approach?
M.
--
To unsubscribe
On 14-03-14 12:37 AM, Andrew Wong wrote:
During a merge, --mixed is most likely not what the user wants. Using
--mixed during a merge would leave the merged changes and new files
mixed in with the local changes. The user would have to manually clean
up the work tree, which is non-trivial. In
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Marc Branchaud marcn...@xiplink.com wrote:
I know this approach was suggested earlier, but given these dangers it seems
silly to give this big warning on a plain git reset but still go ahead and
do the things the warning talks about.
Is there any issue with
Andrew Wong andrew.k...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Marc Branchaud marcn...@xiplink.com wrote:
I know this approach was suggested earlier, but given these dangers it seems
silly to give this big warning on a plain git reset but still go ahead and
do the things the
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:55 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
For the users that really did mean --merge, the warning is silly.
It's basically saying We know that you're about to mess up your work
tree, but we let you mess up anyway. Learn the correct way so that you
don't mess up
6 matches
Mail list logo
