Junio C Hamano wrote: > [...] I'm curious. Why are you going back on what you said just one day ago? What changed? In a previous email, you wrote: > You are free to try to think of a way to tighten the implemention to > reject a random two-or-three parent merge commit that is not a > product of "stash create". People already have looked at this code > since it was written, and didn't find a reasonable way to tighten it > without triggering false negatives, so I wouldn't be surprised if > anybody tried it again today and failed. So, my patch is not a "reasonable" way to achieve this? > When was the last time you tried to run "git stash apply next"? My patch is not solving an end-user problem. Think of it as a source code comment: to answer the question "what kind of commit does stash create make?", the reader simple has to look at when IS_STASH_LIKE is set. It's helping make the source code clearer. Previously, IS_STASH_LIKE might as well have been named IS_MERGE_COMMIT, and nothing would've changed. The reader will wonder what IS_MERGE_COMMIT has to do with stashes, so we named it IS_STASH_LIKE. This is another minor improvement in the same spirit. > Is it worth it? Is it worth what? What are we losing? -- 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