On 02/26/14 15:53, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> - start warning against "reset" (no mode specifier) and "reset --mixed"
>when the index is unmerged *and* MERGE_HEAD exists; and then
Why do we also want to check if index is unmerged? This situation can
happen regardless of having conflicts or not (-
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Matthieu Moy
wrote:
> If you were to design "git reset"'s interface from scratch, your
> proposal would make sense. But we're talking about a change, and you
> can't expect that users never use the current behavior. At the very
> least, there should be a warning te
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> I really don't like the idea of making "git reset" modal, though. I'd
> rather that reset --mixed print some advice about how to recover from
> the mistake, which would also have the advantage of allowing scripts
> that for whatever reason
Andrew Wong writes:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Matthieu Moy
> wrote:
>> But this breaks backward compatibility.
>>
>> I sometimes run "git reset" during a merge to only reset the index and
>> then examine the changes introduced by the merge. With your changes,
>> someone doing so would a
Matthieu Moy writes:
> Andrew Wong writes:
>
>> If the user wants to do "git reset" during a merge, the user most likely
>> wants to do a "git reset --merge". This is especially true during a
>> merge conflict and the user had local changes, because "git reset" would
>> leave the merged changes
Andrew Wong wrote:
> Yeah, this breaks compatibility, but like I said, during a merge, I don't
> see a good reason to do "git reset --mixed", and not "git reset --merge".
Yeah, in principle if it had a different behavior, then plain "git
reset" could be useful during a merge, but as is, I tend to
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Matthieu Moy
wrote:
> But this breaks backward compatibility.
>
> I sometimes run "git reset" during a merge to only reset the index and
> then examine the changes introduced by the merge. With your changes,
> someone doing so would abort the merge and discard the
Andrew Wong writes:
> If the user wants to do "git reset" during a merge, the user most likely
> wants to do a "git reset --merge". This is especially true during a
> merge conflict and the user had local changes, because "git reset" would
> leave the merged changes mixed in with the local change
If the user wants to do "git reset" during a merge, the user most likely
wants to do a "git reset --merge". This is especially true during a
merge conflict and the user had local changes, because "git reset" would
leave the merged changes mixed in with the local changes. This makes
"git reset" a li
9 matches
Mail list logo
