Re: [Bug] git stash generates a different diff then other commands (diff, add, etc) resulting in merge conflicts!

> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 1:29 AM, Luke San Antonio
> <lukesanantonio@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 08/08/20130 04:54 PM, Phil Hord wrote:
>>> Luke,
>>>
>>> I think the issue is that your working directory receives your cached
>>> file when you say 'git stash --keep-index'.  When you restore the
>>> stash, your previous working directory now conflicts with your new
>>> working directory, but neither is the same as HEAD.
>>>
>>> Here's a test script to demonstrate the issue, I think.  Did I get
>>> this right, Luke?
>>>
>>>    # cd /tmp && rm -rf foo
>>>    git init foo && cd foo
>>>    echo "foo" > bar &&  git add bar && git commit -mfoo
>>>    echo "bar" > bar &&  git add bar
>>>    echo "baz" > bar
>>>    echo "Before stash  bar: $(cat bar)"
>>>    git stash --keep-index
>>>    echo "After stash  bar: $(cat bar)"
>>>    git stash apply
>> Actually no, in your script, the bar file has a modification in the working
>> tree which is in the same hunk as a change applied to the index. In my
>> project the changes that were added to the index are not modified further
>> in theworking tree.
>>
>> --------
>>
>> Not only that, but I found out why git was generated different patches!
>> I realized that when I removed a hunk appearing before the merge conflict
>> from the working tree and index, the merge conflict disappeared! Turns
>> out, we can forget about stashing for a minute!
>> First the hunk in my working tree:
>>
>> @@ -56,12 +56,14 @@
>>       bool running_ = true;
>>
>>
>>       /*!
>> -     * \brief The default font renderer, global to all who have a pointer
>> to
>> -     * the Game class.
>> +     * \brief The font renderer implementation, obtained from the config
>> file.
>>        *
>> -     * It need not be used at all!
>> +     * It should be used and passed along to member objects by GameStates!
>> +     *
>> +     * \note It can be cached, but not between GameStates, meaning it
>> should be
>> +     * cached again every time a new GameState is constructed!
>>        */
>> -    std::unique_ptr<FontRenderer> font_renderer_ = nullptr;
>> +    FontRenderer* font_renderer_ = nullptr;
>>
>>       int run(int argc, char* argv[]);
>>
>> Most of this is unimportant, but notice the line number spec:@@ -56,12
>> +56,14 @@
>> The line number of this hunk doesn't change! Then I addeda few lines *above*
>> this hunk, (around line 30 I think). Here is the diff again:
>>
>> @@ -56,12 +58,14 @@
>>       bool running_ = true;
>>
>>
>>       /*!
>> -     * \brief The default font renderer, global to all who have a pointer
>> to
>> -     * the Game class.
>> +     * \brief The font renderer implementation, obtained from the config
>> file.
>> +     *
>> +     * It should be used and passed along to member objects by GameStates!
>>        *
>> -     * It need not be used at all!
>> +     * \note It can be cached, but not between GameStates, meaning it
>> should be
>> +     * cached again every time a new GameState is constructed!
>>        */
>> -    std::unique_ptr<FontRenderer> font_renderer_ = nullptr;
>> +    FontRenderer* font_renderer_ = nullptr;
>>
>>       int run(int argc, char* argv[]);
>>
>> Notice the new line number spec:@@ -56,12 +58,14 @@
>>
>> It moves two lines down, because I added those two lines before it, makes
>> sense!
>> But also notice that the patches are different, just because of the two
>> lines
>> above it!
>>
>> I thought I might be able to fix this problem by changing the new
>> diff.algorithm
>> config option to 'patience', but it seems to only affect how patches look,
>> not
>> how they are stored internally... Same problem!
>>
>> Also, I'm wondering why that line was picked up by git if the patches don't
>> match,
>> shouldn't git give me a conflict with the whole hunk, or is the system
>> smarter
>> than that?
> Git does not store patches.  Git stores the entire file.  I do not
> think the diff algorithm you choose will have any effect on the
> results of the merge.  But I am pretty clueless about the merge
> engine, so I could be off-base on this last part.
>
>> What if merging suppressed the conflict if both possibilities are the same?
>> Isn't
>> that reasonable, or is there some 1% where this could cause (silent but
>> deadly)
>> data loss.
> I think that is what Git is meant to do.  But I am confused now about
> where the failure is occurring for you.  Can you demonstrate the
> problem by modifying my test script?
>
> Is this more like it?
>
>    cd /tmp && rm -rf foo
>    git init foo && cd foo
>    printf "1\n2 foo\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8 foo\n9\n10\n" > bar &&  git add bar
>    git commit -mfoo
>    printf "1\n2 XXX\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8 foo\n9\n10\n" > bar &&  git add bar
>    printf "1\n2 XXX\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8 XXX\n9\n10\n" > bar
>    echo "Before stash  bar: $(cat bar)"
>    git stash --keep-index
>    echo "After stash  bar: $(cat bar)"
>    git stash apply
>
> Phil