Re: [git] Re: Bug in git-stash(.sh) ?

From: Jeff King <peff-adepduraxsq@public.gmane.org>
Date: May 4, 2012, 05:21 UTC
Message-ID: <20120504052106.GA15970@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <20386.53745.200846.115335-a5nvgYPMCZcx/1z6v04GWfZ8FUJU4vz8@public.gmane.org>

On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 02:44:01PM -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote:

Show 8 quoted lines

> > Once that is fixed, then we can consider whether something more should
> > happen for stash (though I am inclined to say that is enough; it is a
> > feature that you can do "git stash list --date=relative" to see the
> > stash timestamps).
> 
> Since the general problem is bigger, how about just the quick patch of
> adding --date=default in the list_stash function as a stopgap?  That
> seems to be close enough to how it should work anyway.

It is bigger in scope, but the fix is still pretty small. I was trying to trick^W gently prod you into making a patch, but that does not seem to have worked. :) So here is a series that fixes it, and we don't have to worry about a stopgap.

  [1/4]: t1411: add more selector index/date tests
  [2/4]: log: respect date_mode_explicit --format:%gd
  [3/4]: reflog-walk: clean up "flag" field of commit_reflog struct
  [4/4]: reflog-walk: always make HEAD@{0} show indexed selectors

The first two fix and test the bug I mentioned, and as a result solve the stash problem. The second two fix and test the bug that Junio mentioned. This doesn't affect stash, but it's the right thing for "git log" to do.

Show 16 quoted lines

> > >   * Some new %gi uses the index number: stash@{1}, and %gI produces
> > >     refs/stash@{1}, unrelated to any date setting
> > >   * git-stash.sh uses %gi so the output has the numbers
> > >   * Some new option for "stash list" for the format string, so it's
> > >     possible to show the dates if you want to with something like
> > >     git stash list --format:"%gi: %gs (%gd)"
> > 
> > I don't have a huge problem with that. But what issue is it really
> > solving? Are people using "git stash list --date=iso" and then
> > getting confused by the output? Or is it simply a matter of
> > mistakenly applying the config when it should not be? The latter
> > needs fixed in either case.
> 
> It's basically an attempt to have a %gi that is disconnected from date
> options (config or flags), which solves the config problem in a
> trivial way (no date options are used)...

I don't have a problem at all with %gi; I think it would be a good addition. I just think that stash shouldn't use, as the "--date" thing is a feature that there is no reason to deny to stash users (it just needs to be less buggy :) ).

-Peff