Re: [PATCH] checkout.txt: note about losing staged changes with --merge

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com> writes:

> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 7:50 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>> Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > 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...
>>
>> At that point, I would have to say that we do not need anything.
>> The use case is already covered with "git reset && git checkout -m",
>> isn't it?
>
> I guess the problem is just that 'git checkout -m' has not refused to
> run with either a dirty index or a dirty working tree, and if both are
> dirty (making us require more of a four-way merge), then our three-way
> merge has to ...

I didn't actually mean "nothing to do here" relative to the current
code; instead, I meant "nothing more than just stop when the index
has updates" (which is hard to read from the above quoted part, as
"Kinda." is a response in a discussion started with my "checkout -m
should probably refuse to do anything when the index is dirty").

> So, I think we do need something (eventually at least).  Would you
> prefer we dropped this patch from Duy and instead made 'checkout -m'
> abort when the index is dirty?

Let's go with the doc update first, as the patch has already
written.  I think in the longer term, just aborting when the index
is dirty would be a vast improvement over the status quo + a doc
update and is a good place to stop.

Thanks.