Hi Junio, On Thu, 3 Jan 2019, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Paul-Sebastian Ungureanu <ungureanupaulsebastian@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > This is a new iteration of git-stash which also takes > > sd/stash-wo-user-name into account. I cherry-picked > > some of dscho's commits (from [1]) to keep the scripted > > version of `git stash` as `git-legacy-stash`. > > I took a brief look and left a comment on 04/26 last year. I had > some time blocked for this topic today to take another look at the > whole series again. Thanks for working on this. > > It seems that the last three or so steps are new, relative to the > previous round. I made sure that what is added back at step 24 > exactly matches the result of merging sd/stash-wo-user-name into the > current 'master', but such a manual validation is error prone. Is > it possible to avoid "remove the scripted one prematurely at step > 23, and then add it back as 'oops, that was wrong' fix at step 24"? > That would have been much more robust approach. Sorry, I should have thought of that. My mistake. As it is, Thomas verified that they are identical, so should we go forward with ps/stash-in-c as-is? I'd prefer that... Ciao, Dscho
