From: Ross Lagerwall <rosslagerwall@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 03:59:54 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] stash: don't leak underlying error messages
Message-ID: <4F87A4BA.50009@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7vaa2g694j.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

On 04/12/2012 09:30 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Sign-off?

Oops, I'm not really used to the whole sign-off thing.

> Is create_stash (hence save_stash) the only operation that do not make
> sense when HEAD is not born yet?  I am wondering if it makes more sense to
> either:
> 
>  (1) catch the case where HEAD is not born yet a lot earlier and do not
>      let the control even reach these functions (i.e. die inside the
>      case/esac statement at the end of the script); or
> 
>  (2) pretend as if HEAD is a commit that records an empty tree, and not
>      error out to begin with.
> 
> If either one of the above turns out to make sense, then the issue this
> patch addresses becomes irrelevant, so...

I think it would be more consistent if stash worked without any commits
having taken place so I'll look at (2).
-- 
Ross Lagerwall