Shawn Pearce <spearce@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> I'd rather do that with a diff file that can be used to do a
>> 3-way (see how rebase does it with --full-index diff with am -3).
>> No point creating and forgetting to remove a throw away branch
>> and getting more complaints.
>
> How is a quick stash different from a topic branch?
The original version of my message in response to TV looked like
this.
- Jack is a beginning user of git and does not (want to) understand
the index (right now).
- Jack works on branch X, say his HEAD points to X1. He has an edited,
uncommitted files with the names A, B and C.
- Jack wants to pull new changes made by others to his branch.
But "git merge" invoked from "git pull" says he needs to stash
away the local changes to do the merge.
- Jack stashes away what he has been working on and cleans up
his mess.
git checkout -b stash ;# risks error when "stash" exists
git commit -a -m 'Stashing WIP'
git checkout master ;# assuming that was where he was
- Jack then pulls. There are merge conflicts in files D, E, ..., Z.
- Jack resolves the merge conflicts and is ready to commit the resulting
merge. Note files A, B and C do not have his unfinished work.
There is no "if Jack does this or that" problem; he says "git
commit -a" because that is the only "commit" command he knows
about.
- Jack then reapplies what he stashed away, and keeps working.
git pull . --no-commit stash
git branch -D stash
You have to teach the new user to (1) name something, only to
immediately discard it when he returns to what he was in the
middle of, (2) remember to clean up the temporary thing once he
is done lest he forgets to clean it up (and common names like
"stash", "tmp" will be reused by accident causing grief next
time he needs to do another stash), and (3) use of --no-commit
pull.
On the other hand, "git stash/unstash" workflow would be quite
simple:
$ git stash >my.precious.state
... do whatever you want to deviate to
$ git unstash <my.precious.state
Merge resolve might be needed while unstashing, but
we are talking about pulling somebody else's work in "do
whatever" part, so that is something the user knows how to
perform anyway.
A quick and dirty stash implementation would go like this:
Stash is easy.
#!/bin/sh
# git stash
git diff --binary HEAD
git reset --hard
Unstash is a bit involved.
#!/bin/sh
# git unstash
. git-sh-setup
O_OBJECT=`cd "$GIT_OBJECT_DIRECTORY" && pwd`
O_DIR=`cd "$GIT_DIR" && pwd`
stash="$O_DIR/.stash$$"
rm -fr "$stash.*"
trap 'rm -rf $stash.*' 0
cat >"$stash.patch"
git-apply -z --index-info <"$stash.patch" >"$stash.list"
GIT_INDEX_FILE="$stash.index" \
GIT_OBJECT_DIRECTORY="$O_OBJECT" \
(
mkdir -p "$stash.tmp" &&
git-update-index -z --index-info <"$stash.list" &&
git-write-tree >"$stash.base" &&
cd "$stash.tmp" &&
git-apply --binary --index <"$stash.patch" &&
git-write-tree >"$stash.his"
)
his_tree=$(cat "$stash.his")
orig_tree=$(cat "$stash.base")
rm -fr "$stash.*"
git-merge-resolve $orig_tree -- HEAD $his_tree
This is essentially the core of "am -3" logic; if you are going
to use this for real, you would probably want to see if the
patch applies cleanly before falling back on the three-way
merge, though.
-
: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html