Hi, does anyone see any reason why this series could not be a candidate for merging into next or master? If there is some reason for me to re-post it, let me know. Regards, jon. On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Jon Seymour <jon.seymour@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > | fixed the subject line - sorry ! > > This series fixes git stash branch so that it is more tolerant of > stash-like commits created with git stash create. > > It particular, it doesn't require there to be a stash stack if a > stash-like argument is specified and it doesn't attempt to drop > non-stash references after applying the stash. > > This series replaces my previous patch that just included a test > that demonstrated the existance of the issue. > > stash: It looks like a stash, but doesn't quack like a stash... > stash: Allow git stash branch to process commits that look like > stashes but are not stash references. > stash: modify tests to reflect stash branch fixes. > > git-stash.sh | 10 ++++++++-- > t/t3903-stash.sh | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > -- > 1.7.2.1.111.g8fc90 > > > -- 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