Re: "git stash pop" is doing an unwanted "git add" when there are conflicts.

Jeff King writes: > Yeah, I think I agree. But keep in mind that we have to mention the > conflicts _somewhere_, so we're going to touch the index regardless (and > the user is going to have to erase the conflicts in the index > eventually, either with `git add` or `git reset`).

Re: "git stash pop" is doing an unwanted "git add" when there are conflicts.

Hello, Jeff. On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 02:53:30AM -0500, Jeff King wrote: > On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 09:20:38AM +, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > > > It seems to be a side effect of merge-recursive to stage the results, > > > and in the no-conflict path we explicitly reset the index. For the > > >

Re: "git stash pop" is doing an unwanted "git add" when there are conflicts.

On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 09:20:38PM +, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > > Yeah, I think I agree. But keep in mind that we have to mention the > > conflicts _somewhere_, so we're going to touch the index regardless (and > > the user is going to have to erase the conflicts in the index > > eventually,

Re: "git stash pop" is doing an unwanted "git add" when there are conflicts.

On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 11:04:20AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > [...] > In the above, I suggested to "git reset" when there is no conflict. > I think this line of thinking can be followed even further to > selectively reset the paths that were cleanly merged (which is added > by the call to

Re: "git stash pop" is doing an unwanted "git add" when there are conflicts.

On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 09:20:38AM +, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > > It seems to be a side effect of merge-recursive to stage the results, > > and in the no-conflict path we explicitly reset the index. For the > > conflicting case, it's trickier, because we would want to retain the > > unmerged

Re: "git stash pop" is doing an unwanted "git add" when there are conflicts.

Hello, Jeff. On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 04:30:33AM -0500, Jeff King wrote: > On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 09:17:38AM +0100, Dennis Kaarsemaker wrote: > > On ma, 2015-12-21 at 14:29 +, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > > > Hello, git project. > > > Last night, whilst clearing out a stale "stash stack", I did

Re: "git stash pop" is doing an unwanted "git add" when there are conflicts.

On ma, 2015-12-21 at 14:29 +, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > Hello, git project. > > Last night, whilst clearing out a stale "stash stack", I did "git stash > pop". There were conflicts in two files. > > However, all the popped files became staged. This doesn't normally happen. > It was intensely

Re: "git stash pop" is doing an unwanted "git add" when there are conflicts.

On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 09:17:38AM +0100, Dennis Kaarsemaker wrote: > On ma, 2015-12-21 at 14:29 +, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > > Hello, git project. > > > > Last night, whilst clearing out a stale "stash stack", I did "git stash > > pop". There were conflicts in two files. > > > > However,

Re: "git stash pop" is doing an unwanted "git add" when there are conflicts.

Alan Mackenzie wrote: on Mon, 21 Dec 2015 14:29:54 > Hello, git project. > Last night, whilst clearing out a stale "stash stack", I did "git stash > pop". There were conflicts in two files. > However, all the popped files became staged. This doesn't normally happen. > It was