From: Tassilo Horn <tsdh@gnu.org>
To: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Bug] Stashing during merge loses MERGING state
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 21:31:09 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87a6r9o1yo.fsf@gnu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YEpusE7ZIE5RgOws@coredump.intra.peff.net>
Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
Hi Jeff,
>> What did you expect to happen? (Expected behavior)
>>
>> I expected that stashing during a merge will keep the MERGING state.
>
> Thanks for providing a clear recipe and expectation. However, I think
> Git is working here as intended. The MERGE_HEAD file (which is how "git
> status", the prompt, etc figure out that we're in the middle of a merge)
> is cleaned up when stash runs "git reset --hard" under the hood.
>
> However, I don't think we would want to _not_ clear that file. The
> conflicted merge placed some changes into the index and working tree
> representing what happened on the branch you're merging in. Then
> making the stash (and the reset of the working tree) removes those
> changes. If we were to leave MERGE_HEAD in place and you ran "git
> commit", then it would create a merge commit that claims to have
> incorporated everything from the other branch, but has quietly dropped
> those changes as part of the merge resolution.
Yes, that makes sense.
>> Or that popping the stash again would also restore the MERGING state.
>
> This would make more sense: the stash records that part of the state,
> and then we make it available again later when the stash is applied.
> However, that feature doesn't exist yet.
Too bad.
> I can't offhand think of a reason it couldn't be implemented. It's
> possible that it would mess with somebody else's workflow (e.g., they
> think it's useful to stash some changes independent of the merging
> state, and then apply it later, perhaps while replaying the same or a
> similar merge). So it might need to be tied to a command-line option
> or similar.
Everything breakes someones workflow [1], so an option would be fine.
However, I'd suggest to protect users shooting in their foot with a
warning and confirmation query for the time being. I consider myself a
quite experienced git user but this stash trouble today came totally
unexpected. And I've asked on #git@irc.freenode.net and got no answer
which is totally uncommon. So I guess that this stash during merge
thing is pretty much a gray area.
Bye,
Tassilo
[1] https://xkcd.com/1172/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-03-11 20:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-03-11 14:00 [Bug] Stashing during merge loses MERGING state Tassilo Horn
2021-03-11 19:25 ` Jeff King
2021-03-11 20:31 ` Tassilo Horn [this message]
2021-03-12 5:00 ` Phil Hord
2021-03-12 6:09 ` Junio C Hamano
2021-03-12 7:04 ` Elijah Newren
2021-03-12 7:02 ` Chris Torek
2021-03-12 7:17 ` Elijah Newren
2021-03-12 7:02 ` Elijah Newren
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87a6r9o1yo.fsf@gnu.org \
--to=tsdh@gnu.org \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peff@peff.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).