|
From: | Dmitry Gutov |
Subject: | bug#20292: 24.5; Saving Git-controlled file with merge conflicts after "stash pop" stages the file |
Date: | Thu, 14 May 2015 20:30:26 +0300 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.0 |
On 05/14/2015 06:51 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
May I ask why you have uncommitted changes when you pull (or do whatever else requires to stash them)?
My main use case: there are local changes in several configuration files, which I don't ever intend to commit.
Typical case: - before committing, I do a final "pull". - the "pull" fails, so I have to stash/pull/unstash - the commit touches several files and has a conflict somewhere.
To avoid this scenario, I usually commit, and then 'git pull --rebase', which we don't, and shouldn't, recommend.
Why don't you commit them or move them to a branch, or work on a branch to begin with?
I think it would be annoying to create a branch for every tiny change.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |