Re: [Bug] Stashing during merge loses MERGING state

[Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 10:15 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> Phil Hord <phil.hord@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 12:45 PM Tassilo Horn <tsdh@gnu.org> wrote:
> >> >> Or that popping the stash again would also restore the MERGING state.
> >> >
> >> > This would make more sense: the stash records that part of the state,
> >> > and then we make it available again later when the stash is applied.
> >> > However, that feature doesn't exist yet.
> >>
> >> Too bad.
> >
> > Consider also what happens when `git stash apply` results in a merge
> > conflict because of differences between your current index and the one
> > you had when you originally saved the stash.  This results in the
> > usual merge conflict markers that then need to be cleaned up.
>
> I agree with you that allowing a stash while a merge is in progress
> will introduce many unpleasant corner cases the users wouldn't want
> to deal with.  We certainly do prevent "git stash push" from running
> when the index is still unmerged (which is a sign that a mergy
> operation (like pull, rebase, merge, am -3, cherry-pick and revert
> that stops due to a conflict in the middle) is in progress), but
> once the end user resolves the conflicts in the index (either
> manually, or having the rerere.autoupdate feature in effect), such a
> sign of mergy operation still in progress that "git stash" currently
> uses will be gone.  We should teach "git stash push" to pay
> attention to other such signs like MERGE_HEAD etc. and stop before
> creating a stash (and also do the same to "git stash pop/apply").
>
> THanks.

I should have read the rest of the emails before responding.  Once
again, you manage to say roughly what I was thinking, but do so both
more concisely and more eloquently.