On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 11:47:07AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Scott McPeak <smcp...@coverity.com> writes: > > > I suggest that this problem could easily have been avoided if "git > > stash" refused to run with a pending merge (present MERGE_HEAD file), > > since this is crucial repository state that it does not save. This > > seems similar to what "git cherry-pick" does. > > Sounds senslbe. What do we want to see happen in other states, in > which Git gives control back to the user asking for help before > moving forward (e.g. am, rebase, cherry-pick, revert)?
I don't think there's any need to prevent stash running in these cases and I sometimes find it useful that I can stash during a rebase. Having said that, I wonder what happens with "cherry-pick -x" if you do stash changes while it is stopped. I don't think that is as serious as the merge case because it's easy to detect in the commit message. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
