Re: [PATCH 3/3] pull: introduce --[no-]autostash and pull.autostash

Matthieu Moy wrote:

No, you don't. Just try if you're not convinced:

Oh, I trusted the documentation on this one and never tried with a
dirty worktree myself.  Please fix the documentation, if you know how
exactly to correct it.

No, I'm not proposing to do anything for merge. There's no reason to try
being uniform in conflict resolution for pull-merge and pull-rebase as
it is already different now. We already have "git rebase --continue", we
don't have "git merge --continue". So what? The fact that merge doesn't
have the equivalent doesn't mean we should not do something for "rebase
--continue".

Well, you can't blame me for the misunderstanding then.

In a previous email, you wrote:

Shouldn't this belong to "git merge" instead (i.e. implement "git merge
--autosquash" and call it from "git pull")? Users doing "git fetch &&
git merge" by hand should be able to use --autosquash, I think.

Junio's criticism of pull.autostash hurting pull-merge people is
cogent; my current plan is to ditch pull.autostash altogether, and
implement rebase.autostash for the reduced case of a non-interactive
rebase.