Quoting Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx>:
> I think it would make much more sense to represent a stash like
> this:
>
> .------o commit to represent index state
> / \
> ---o---o----------o
> HEAD commit to represent worktree state
>
> That is, "index" and "worktree" state are represented as one
> commit each, both are direct child of the HEAD, with an added
> twist of the latter being also a child of the former.
I do not know if I understand you correctly.
Do you mean that I should create a stash this way?
i_tree=$(git-write-tree)
i_commit=$(echo index | git-commit-tree $i_tree -p HEAD)
w_tree=$( what I did to create w_tree in my previous patch )
w_commit=$(echo $msg | git-commit-tree $w_tree -p HEAD -p $i_commit)
and when unstashing the stash, I should:
git-merge-recursive $stash^^{tree} -- $stash^^{tree} $stash^{tree}
I think I can make it work, but if that is not what you meant, please let me know.
> I am not absolutely sure if "git reset --hard" belongs here.
> > You can certainly type one less command in your example sequence
> > ("stash; pull; restore"). But I suspect there may be a case
> > that would be more useful if "git save" did not do the reset
> > itself. I dunno....
>
> I now think "git reset --hard" here is fine.
I see.
I will try to update and resend my patch this weekend.
--
Nanako Shiraishi
http://ivory.ap.teacup.com/nanako3/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Get a free email address with REAL anti-spam protection.
http://www.bluebottle.com
-
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
