list mirror (unofficial, one of many)
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Elijah Newren <>
To: Bryan Turner <>
Cc: Git Users <>
Subject: Re: "Losing" MERGE_HEAD
Date: Thu, 30 May 2019 23:03:13 -0700
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 9:19 PM Bryan Turner <> wrote:
> I was looking through the commit history in a repository I work in and
> I found a place where someone had created a merge, but somewhere
> between "git merge" and "git commit" the fact that it was a merge was
> "lost". Instead they ended up with a really big commit that applied
> all the changes from the merged-in branch.
> A really easy way to reproduce this is:
> git merge master #Assume this has conflicts, or use --no-commit
> git checkout -b some-new-branch
> When the checkout runs, MERGE_HEAD et al are deleted without any sort
> of warning, but the uncommitted changes are not lost. If a user then
> runs "git commit", and doesn't notice that there's no helpful "It
> looks like you may be committing a merge", they'll create a new,
> non-merge commit that essentially reapplies all the changes they
> merged in.
> I'm pretty familiar with Git and I make this mistake at least a few
> times a year. So far I've always caught it during the commit, though.
> Unfortunately, in this case, the bad "merge" wasn't noticed before it
> made its way to master, so now it's there for good.
> I'm not sure what there is to do about this. It's clear it's a
> long-standing behavior. One approach might be to introduce a warning
> when changing branches deletes MERGE_*. A different one might be to
> fail to change branches without something like --force. I'm not sure
> either is _better_ than the current behavior, but they're certainly
> _clearer_. That said, perhaps this behavior is something someone
> relies on.
> Best regards,
> Bryan Turner

Discussed in detail recently starting at

resulting in

I think we should still do the follow up for checkout, as mentioned at

It's good to get extra feedback that this isn't just theoretical but
is causing people actual problems.  Do you want to take the time to
make the change I suggested in the last email above and propose it to
the list?  I think the main thing needed is just a good commit message
and getting feedback and thoughts from others; your description above
was well written and I'm busy on other things right now, so if you'd
like to tackle it, I'd appreciate it.  If not, I will hopefully
remember to get back to it eventually.

Hope that helps,

      reply	other threads:[~2019-05-31  6:03 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-05-31  4:16 Bryan Turner
2019-05-31  6:03 ` Elijah Newren [this message]

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:

  List information:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='' \ \ \ \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link list mirror (unofficial, one of many)

This inbox may be cloned and mirrored by anyone:

	git clone --mirror
	git clone --mirror http://ou63pmih66umazou.onion/git
	git clone --mirror http://czquwvybam4bgbro.onion/git
	git clone --mirror http://hjrcffqmbrq6wope.onion/git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V1 git git/ \
	public-inbox-index git

Example config snippet for mirrors.
Newsgroups are available over NNTP:
 note: .onion URLs require Tor:

code repositories for the project(s) associated with this inbox:

AGPL code for this site: git clone