From: Jon Seymour <jon.seymour@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 23:55:24 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/9] stash: extract stash-like check into its own function
Message-ID: <AANLkTimDoRHGgQz70P9SZuFQzdUJqPQFY-+3qLvii3gy@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7v8w4bnxpj.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> Jon Seymour <jon.seymour@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> A similar code block is used in three places; this change
>> factors the stash-like check into a separate function so that
>> it can be used in these and other places.
>
> "git stash show" used to be able to show a single-parent commit, and we
> are forbidding that "feature".  I'd actually call that a bugfix though ;-)
>
>> +# if this function returns, then:
>> +#   s is set to the stash commit
>> +#   w_commit is set to the commit containing the working tree
>> +#   b_commit is set to the base commit
>> +#   i_commit is set to the commit containing the index tree
>> +# otherwise:
>> +#   the function exits via die
>> +#
>> +assert_stash_like() {
>> +     # stash records the work tree, and is a merge between the
>> +     # base commit (first parent) and the index tree (second parent).
>> +     s=$(git rev-parse --revs-only --quiet --verify --default $ref_stash "$@") &&
>> +     w_commit=$(git rev-parse --quiet --verify "$s:") &&
>> +     b_commit=$(git rev-parse --quiet --verify "$s^1:") &&
>> +     i_commit=$(git rev-parse --quiet --verify "$s^2:") ||
>> +             die "$*: no valid stashed state found"
>
> Don't these "rev-parse" calls return tree objects?  It is too confusing to
> call them x_commit if that is the case.
>

My bad. You are quite correct. I was a little _too_ eager to remove a
redundancy. This also explains my misconceived "Note tor reviewers"!
I'll fix in the next round.