You want more fans, I want more stage

[venta]

In a radical departure from asking people what they're wearing, I would now like to ask for help with git. If you don't understand the question, just be very grateful and move on ;-)

When an incoming git pull suffers a merge failure[*], why, why, does git decide to compound the problem by staging every modified file it can lay its grubby little paws on?

I assumed that if I started typing "why does git stage..." into Google it would auto-complete with all the various phrases distressed people all over the internet have typed in. It does not, and I can't find anyone writing about it. For bonus points, tell me how to stop it doing this - but I'll settle for understanding the rationale behind it!

[*] Which, if the two versions have changed lines anywhere near each other, it will

Comments

[venta.livejournal.com]

In theory I use git stash. However, I am not terribly organised, so it often goes:

Me: right, ready! Commit these files, and push them.
Git. No.
Me: Why not?
Git: New stuff in the repo. Try pulling.
Me: Oh, all right.
Git: Ha! Merge conflict, I've staged everything!
Me: Dammit, should have stashed.

Every so often I think I really should get to grips properly with git, but I always get instantly bogged down reading about it, because everything basically reads like this: http://git-man-page-generator.lokaltog.net/

[qatsi.livejournal.com]

Aha! Maybe you should not think of commit and push as a single step. You should be able to commit locally regardless of changes in a remote repo. Commit, then pull and resolve conflicts, then push.

[venta.livejournal.com]

I don't really think of them as a single step, I was just trying to stop my dialogue getting too long :)

[qatsi.livejournal.com]

You do know about http://git-scm.com/book/en/v2 ?

[venta.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure that I've tried that reference specifically - I'll give it a go if you recommend it!