|
From: | Dmitry Gutov |
Subject: | bug#20292: 24.5; Saving Git-controlled file with merge conflicts after "stash pop" stages the file |
Date: | Sat, 18 Apr 2015 22:16:51 +0300 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:36.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/36.0 |
On 04/10/2015 03:55 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
If "git stash pop" encounters merge conflicts, then resolving these conflicts in Emacs and saving the buffer will run "git add" for the file whose conflicts were resolved. But that is not TRT in this case; the user likely does not expect to have her uncommitted changes staged for the next commit.
Apparently, to both mark the conflict as resolved and not stage the file, the best we can do is 'git add ...; git reset ...', which would not DTRT if the file had some changes, and they were staged before you did 'git stash pop' (if the file had unstaged changes, 'git stash pop' would abort).
Should we be concerned about that?
Therefore, I think vc-git-resolve-when-done should not run "git add" if the merge conflict was due to "git stash pop".
Maybe we can detect this case (as well as any similar ones) by the absence of .git/MERGE_HEAD.
But what's the justification for vc-git-resolve-when-done? I think vc-git-checkin will work well enough without that.Further, if there's a conflict, 'git stash pop' doesn't actually remove the stash from the list. Would we expect vc-git-resolve-when-done to call 'git stash drop' at the end of conflict resolution?
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |