Junio C Hamano wrote:
quoted
quoted
while possible, it leaves you in a state that is hard to
+back out of in the case of a conflict.
+
Oh, that is a problem. Maybe 'git merge' should refuse to merge
unless told otherwise, if there is a dirty index and there might be
conflicts.
Actually I'm worried about a dirty *worktree*. Do you think that
should be clarified?
"git reset --merge" will keep your local changes after such a merge, and
"mergy" operations (not just "merge" but also "revert", "am -3", etc)
won't get you into a situation where you cannot, by refusing to do
anything when e.g. your index is dirty. Especially when Christian's
"reset --merge" update becomes solid, "... is hard to back out of" will
become a false statement.
Does that apply to dirty worktrees, too? I admit I didn't follow that
topic at all.
--
Thomas Rast
trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch