GNU bug report logs - #20292
24.5; Saving Git-controlled file with merge conflicts after "stash pop" stages the file

Previous Next

Package: emacs;

Reported by: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>

Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 12:57:02 UTC

Severity: normal

Merged with 20151

Found in versions 24.5, 25.0.50

Done: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov <at> yandex.ru>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log


View this message in rfc822 format

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Cc: esr <at> snark.thyrsus.com, 20292 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, dgutov <at> yandex.ru
Subject: bug#20292: 24.5; Saving Git-controlled file with merge conflicts after "stash pop" stages the file
Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 23:19:35 +0300
> From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
> Cc: dgutov <at> yandex.ru,  esr <at> snark.thyrsus.com,  20292 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 16:02:03 -0400
> 
> >> > That's not the use case we were discussing, though.  We were
> >> > discussing a use case where the user merged from another repository,
> >> > and then wants her uncommitted changes restored.  Leaving them staged
> >> > will trip the naive users.
> >> But Emacs is not the main culprit: Git itself will stage all the
> >> non-conflicting changes, so why should this not trip the user similarly?
> > The users I have in mind expect Emacs to save them from Git
> > idiosyncrasies.
> 
> I don't see how that's relevant.

Strange.

> By behaving differently from the rest of Git, I'm afraid we'll just
> introduce more problems.

I'm not afraid of that.

> >> IOW if the user gets tripped by Emacs doing "git add" after resolving
> >> a unstash conflict, why would that same user not already be tripped
> >> identically by Git doing this "git add" on the non-conflicted files?
> > Because they don't use Git from the shell, or at least try not to.
> 
> Feel free to change the behavior of vc-git-resolve-when-done for the
> case where the unstash was done from within Emacs after you've changed
> this unstash to behave the way you want it, rather than the way Git
> does it.
> 
> In my case, the unstash is done by Git with no Emacs involvement, and in
> that case it seems that "git add" is just the only sane thing to do.

Then I guess the only way to stop this endless and futile argument is
to have an option that will control whether we "add" or "reset".




This bug report was last modified 8 years and 191 days ago.

Previous Next


GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.