"brian m. carlson" <sandals@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> ... The commits used in a stash export are nearly
> identical to those used in the stashes, with one notable change: the
> first parent of a stash is a pointer to the previous stash, or an empty
> commit if there is no previous stash. All of the other parents used in
> the stash commit are present following it in their normal order.
> ...
> We intentionally attempt to exactly round-trip commits between stashes,
> although we don't do so for the exported data due to the base commit not
> having identical timestamps. Preserving the commits exactly lets us
> more efficiently test our code and it also permits users to more easily
> determine if they have the same data.
Hmph, out of reflog entries stash@{0}, stash@{1}, stash@{3}, if we
create a chain of commits A, B, C such that
A^2 = B, A^1 = stash@{0}
B^2 = C, B^1 = stash@{1}
C^1 = stash@{2}
then the original stash entry commits can be recreated identically,
and after you export the stash as "A", you can "import" from it
without creating any new commit to represent the stash entries, no?
When we create A, if we use a predictable commit log message and
the same author/committer ident as A^1 (i.e. stash@{0}), and do it
the same for B and C, then no matter who exports the stash and at
which time, we'd get an identical result, I would presume.
> The tooling here is intentionally plumbing. It's designed to be simple
> and functional and get the basic job done. If we want additional
> features, we can add them in the future, but this should be a simple,
> basic feature set that can support additional uses.
Sounds sensible.
