On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 06:50:38PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > > > I _think_ the reason we originally insisted on clean working tree was that > > > while merge-resolve has always had an acurate check, merge-recursive's > > > check was not very good, especially when renames are involved. So > > > probably this part of your comment ... > [...] > > That makes sense to me. I'd be a lot more comfortable if I could find > > the actual place where merge-recursive got more accurate. I'll see if > > it's simple to bisect. > > Hmm, no such luck. In v1.5.0, before stash even existed, "git merge" > will properly fail on this case (though the error message isn't as > pretty): > [...] > which leads me to believe there is a more complex case that > merge-recursive wasn't handling at the time, and which may or may not be > handled better today. What that case would be, I have no clue. Hmm. I think that code is due to your comment on the original git-stash (then "git-save") here: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/50749 > +function restore_save () { > + save=$(git rev-parse --verify --default saved "$1") > + h_tree=$(git rev-parse --verify $save:base) > + i_tree=$(git rev-parse --verify $save:indx) > + w_tree=$(git rev-parse --verify $save:work) > + > + git-merge-recursive $h_tree -- HEAD^{tree} $w_tree > +} The same "robustness" comments for the save_work function apply here. You probably do not want to restore on a dirty tree; the intended use case is "stash away, pull, then restore", so I think it is Ok to assume that you will only be restoring on a clean state (and it would make the implementation simpler). So perhaps there is no broken case at all, and it was just a matter of being overly conservative from the beginning. -Peff -- 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