Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > 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... Yes, before sending the message you are responding to, I made sure the scripted version added back is identical to the current one, and also there is no in-flight updates/fixes to the scripted one. The benefit that would come from a possible reroll to start the series from the last three patches would be fairly limited. Such a reorganized series would have allowed investigation of regressions and bugs during the development comparing the original and rewritten implementations slightly easier, but experience from seeing the evolution of these "reimplement in C" topics tells us that we see major part of the regression fallouts after the series is declared "feature complete" anyway, so in the long run, the less-than-ideal organization of the topic does not matter much in practice.
