On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 4:11 AM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 07:40:13PM -0400, Aaron M Watson wrote:
>
>> Instead of referencing "stash@{n}" explicitly, it can simply be
>> referenced as "n". Most users only reference stashes by their position
>> in the stash stask (what I refer to as the "index"). The syntax for the
>> typical stash (stash@{n}) is slightly annoying and easy to forget, and
>> sometimes difficult to escape properly in a script. Because of this the
>> capability to do things with the stash by simply referencing the index
>> is desirable.
>>
>> This patch includes the superior implementation provided by Øsse Walle
>> (thanks for that), with a slight change to fix a broken test in the test
>> suite. I also merged the test scripts as suggested by Jeff King, and
>> un-wrapped the documentation as suggested by Junio Hamano.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Aaron M Watson <watsona4@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>
> Thanks, this version looks good to me.
>
> Oddly, it does not seem to apply. I get:
>
> $ git am -3 ~/patch
> Applying: Allow stashes to be referenced by index only
> Using index info to reconstruct a base tree...
> M git-stash.sh
> error: patch failed: t/t3903-stash.sh:604
> error: t/t3903-stash.sh: patch does not apply
> error: Did you hand edit your patch?
> It does not apply to blobs recorded in its index.
> Patch failed at 0001 Allow stashes to be referenced by index only
>
> The culprit seems to be the final hunk header:
>
>> @@ -604,7 +624,21 @@ test_expect_success 'invalid ref of the form stash@{n}, n >= N' '
>
> This should be "604,6", as there are 6 context lines, and your patch
> does not remove any lines.
>
> I suspect the maintainer can fix it up while applying, but for my
> curiosity: did you hand-edit it, or is there a potential bug in git's
> diff code?
I did indeed edit the patch by hand (I forgot to remove the spaces
after the > in the test file), but
the bug appears to be in emacs's diff-mode, not in git.
>
> -Peff
--
Aaron and Ashley Watson