Re: [PATCH v3 17/19] merge: teach --autostash option

> > On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 04:24:54PM +0100, Phillip Wood wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/branch.c b/branch.c
> > > > index 579494738a..bf2536c70d 100644
> > > > --- a/branch.c
> > > > +++ b/branch.c
> > > > @@ -344,6 +344,7 @@ void remove_merge_branch_state(struct repository *r)
> > > >    	unlink(git_path_merge_rr(r));
> > > >    	unlink(git_path_merge_msg(r));
> > > >    	unlink(git_path_merge_mode(r));
> > > > +	apply_autostash(git_path_merge_autostash(r));
> > > >    }
> > > >    void remove_branch_state(struct repository *r, int verbose)
> > > > diff --git a/builtin/commit.c b/builtin/commit.c
> > > > index 7ba33a3bec..c11894423a 100644
> > > > --- a/builtin/commit.c
> > > > +++ b/builtin/commit.c
> > > > @@ -1687,6 +1687,8 @@ int cmd_commit(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> > > >    	unlink(git_path_merge_mode(the_repository));
> > > >    	unlink(git_path_squash_msg(the_repository));
> > > > +	apply_autostash(git_path_merge_autostash(the_repository));
> > > > +
> > > 
> > > It's hard to tell from the limited context but do we want to run
> > > commit_index_files() before applying the autostash?
> > 
> > I don't think it really matters which order we run it in. When we run
> > apply_autostash(), we only ever touch the working tree, not the index so
> > it doesn't matter if it's run before or after. I'd prefer to keep it
> > here because if we ever refactor this to use
> > remove_merge_branch_state(), the person working on this will be able to
> > perform the refactor more easily without having to worry about implicit
> > ordering dependencies.
> 
> Thinking a bit more about this we definitely want to commit the index files
> before applying the stash as that is done in a separate process so we want
> our index written to disk first.
> 
> 'git stash apply' does touch the index while it's merging and then tries to
> reset it to the pre-merge state if the merge has no conflicts. If the user
> runs
>     git add new-file
>     git merge --autostash branch
> and new-file is not in branch then 'git stash apply' will add new-file to
> the index
> 
> 
> > > I wonder if this should
> > > be using remove_merge_branch_state() instead of duplicating it as well.
> > 
> > We can _almost_ use remove_branch_state() even! Unfortunately,
> > remove_merge_branch_state() calls `unlink(git_path_merge_rr(r))` which
> > we cannot do since repo_rerere() relies on it later. Perhaps we can
> > can move repo_rerere() earlier?
> 
> I think we should move apply_autostash() down so that repo_rerere() is
> called with the index that we've committed before we apply the stash which
> might add conflicts or new files. We should probably run the post-commit and
> post-rewrite hooks before we apply the autostash as well to avoid changing
> the existing behaviour.
> 
> If we aim for something like
>   commit_index_files()
>   repo_rerere()
>   stash_oid = read_autostash_oid()
>   cleanup_branch_state()
>   run_post_commit_hook()
>   run_post_rewrite_hook()
>   print_commit_summary()
>   apply_autostash(stash_oid)
> 
> Then we keep the existing behaviour for rerere and the hooks, and the commit
> summary is printed before all the status junk that apply_autostash() spews
> out