On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 8:19 AM Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: > > Duy Nguyen <pclo...@gmail.com> writes: > > >> I think "checkout -m <otherbranch>" with a dirty index should refuse > >> to run; there is nothing to "continue" after such a failure, so I am > >> not sure what you mean by "an option to continue" (iow, I do not see > >> a need for such an option, and if that option makes the whole notion > >> strange, we can just decide not to have it, can't we?). > > > > We have --force to continue even when we have local changes, which > > will be overwritten. I was thinking a similar option which gives us > > permission to destroy staged changes. > > Ah, then that is not "checkout --continue", but "checkout --force > -m"? That sounds sensible, and should behave as if "checkout -f > HEAD && checkout -m <otherbranch>" was done, with respect to local > changes, I would think.
Kinda. But "--force --merge" makes no sense. --force discards all local changes by definition, which means you can't have conflicts and will not need --merge. I think this is the reason why we die() out when both are specified. So we need something like --discard-staged-changes-only... -- Duy
