On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 04:11:15PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Charles Bailey <charles@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > It is likely that this needs to be protected with SYMLINKS prerequisite. > Also I am a bit unhappy about the use of "readlink" which is not even in > POSIX.1 here. We already have one use of it in the tests but that only > happens while doing valgrind. Traditionally this has been more portably > done by reading from "ls -l file", like so: > > case "$(ls -l file)" in *" file -> file2") :;; *) false;; esac I don't have access to many flavours of unix at the moment and I failed to look up the POSIXness of readlink. I'll re-roll with greater portability. > Also, whether "readlink file" or "ls -l file" is used to check the result, > the "test -f file" is redundant. Yes, of course. Not sure what I was thinking. What about "test -h"? Is this sufficiently portable for use in our tests? I understand that it's supposed to be POSIX and available on Solaris sh. > > > +test_expect_failure 'stash directory to file' ' > > + git reset --hard && > > + mkdir dir && > > + echo foo >dir/file && > > + git add dir/file && > > + git commit -m "Add file in dir" && > > + rm dir/file && > > + rmdir dir && > > + echo bar >dir && > > + git stash save "directory to file" && > > + test -d dir && > > + test foo = "$(cat dir/file)" && > > + test_must_fail git stash apply && > > + test bar = "$(cat dir)" && > > + git reset --soft HEAD^ > > +' > > I have a feeling that this test is being a bit unfair. > > What should a successful invocation of "stash apply" leave in the working > tree in this case, especially when you consider that in a real life use > case you may have other files in "dir" directory or changes to "dir/file"? Actually I now think that this is completely wrong. There's no reason that stash apply shouldn't succeed. If we managed to save the new file where the directory was in the stash then why shouldn't apply be able to at least attempt to remove the tracked files in the directory that were originally removed and replace them with the stashed file? Even if we decide that it can't or shouldn't, we should expect a failing stash apply to leave the tree as it currently is. That does leave the question of how the user is supposed to get stuff out of his stash. After all, he's trying to apply the stash on exactly the state that stash left him in. Is it sensible to be guided by these two principles: git stash should be safe, i.e. it should never remove content that it doesn't save in the database. git stash && git stash apply should leave the working tree exactly as it was before the git stash invocation (if the stash succeeds it may be equivalent to a git reset)? If so we definitely need to fix the behaviour where git stash vaporizes local changes when there's a file <-> directory change in the working tree. Even if we cop out and make git stash fail if it determines that it wouldn't restore the changes. Charles. -- To unsubscribe from this list: 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