Support choosing checkout branch method when status is not empty

[Fatpandac]

This Pull Request fixes/closes #2404.

It changes the following:

• support choosing checkout branch method when status is not empty
• add .editorconfig file

I followed the checklist:

• I added unittests
• I ran make check without errors
• I tested the overall application
• I added an appropriate item to the changelog

[extrawurst]

Thanks for looking into this! I left the first round of feedbacks

[noleptr]

hi, apologies for the intrusion. i have come across this repo just now and have been poking around. i hope you don't mind but i've left a few comments and questions i have, but don't feel obligated to reply

[extrawurst]

@Fatpandac I compared our behavior when choosing stash and reapply with Forks and ours has one obvious difference that might (at least) confuse:
if you have changes stages and changes to the same file unstaged this will merge these into a single stash and it will have all changes unstaged after the procedure.

[extrawurst]

We should either fix this and stash staged and unstaged separately or flat out error if we detect that this will happen. Wdyt?

[extrawurst]

Considering the findings I would further argue lets move the logic to checkout with different options to asyncgit and lets cover them with proper unit tests that recreate the various scenarios and the expected results/errors we want to achieve. this is a fundamental enough feature to warrant that quality and resilience for future changes not breaking it

[extrawurst]

@Fatpandac if the stash staging and non-staged changes is gonna be hard (I assume so, I am not aware we have that machinery yet) then lets for now rip out the stashing option and support only Discard & Keep option that is largely handled by libgit2 and followup with the stashing variants in a followup PR?

[Fatpandac]

@extrawurst I agree. I'll remove the KeepLocalChanges option in the next commit.

[extrawurst]

@Fatpandac please resolve conflicts and let me know when this is ready for a new round of reviews

[Fatpandac]

@extrawurst Could you please take a look at this comment? I’m not sure how to resolve it.

[extrawurst]

@Fatpandac can you resolve the merge conflict, then we can merge

[extrawurst]

LGTM

[Fatpandac]

Done