Re: git merge --abort

Jakub Narebski [off-list ref] writes:

Junio C Hamano wrote:

quoted

John Tapsell [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

It sounds like we have some sort of plan then.  Will Nana's patch be
committed into mainline git?  Then we can add the --abort porcelain

I do not know what plan you are talking about, but that's not how the
development works.  If something is merged to 'pu', and you have a cool
feature you would want to take advantage of it, you can build your cool
feature on top of that particular topic.  If the result looks reasonable
they would cook for a while in 'next' for further polishing and then
finally go to 'mainline'.

I personally did not think "--keep" would need to be be part of a
reasonable "merge --abort" implementation, but I may have missed some
description of a viable design discussed on the list.

My idea was that merge would do the following:

  $ <save stash into MERGE_STASH or similar, no reset>
  $ <do a merge>

Then we have two possibilities:

  # merge failed with conflicts
  $ git merge --abort (would unstash MERGE_STASH and delete it)

Here "would unstash" needs to follow something else, namely, make your
work tree free of local changes.  How?  "reset --hard"?

  # we created merge conflict
  $ <MERGE_STASH is removed together with MERGE_HEAD>

You mean "created a merge without conflict", right?  That part is easy to
guess and understand.

In fact, when you run more than one strategies, something similar to this
already happens internally.  The C version may be harder to follow, but
you can check the last scripted version contrib/examples/git-merge.sh and
find two functions, savestate/restorestate pair, that does exactly that.

It way predates --keep patch, by the way.