Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Keith Smiley <keithbsmiley@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > In the case there are no files to stash, but the user asked to stash, we > > should exit 1 since the stashing failed. > > --- > > Sorry, but I fail to see why this is a good change. Did you have > some script that wanted the exit code from "git stash" to indicate > if it had anything to stash and change the behaviour based on it? > > Is it a big enough hassle to figure out if the "stash" command did > something yourself that justifies forcing existing scripts that rely > on "no-op is merely a normal exit" behaviour other people have > written in the past several years? The problem with current behaviour is it makes it hard to use stash in scripts. A natural stash use case is: wrap some operation requiring a clean working tree with a stash push-pop pair. But that doesn't work properly when working tree is already clean - push silently does nothing and following pop becomes unbalanced. You have to keep that in mind and work around with something like: if ! git diff-index --exit-code --quiet HEAD then git stash push trap 'git stash pop' EXIT fi With this change this can be simplified to: git stash push && trap 'git stash pop' EXIT I don't mind keeping this new behaviour behind an option for compatibility. Or alternatively resolve this use case by supporting --allow-empty in stash-push. But my feeling is it is natural for 'git stash push' to report error for no-op case because the command is explicitly about creating new stash entries. A close analogy is 'git commit' which errors on no-op. Contrary all commands treating no-op as a success I'm aware of are not about creating new objects but about querying or syncing.
