Re: [PATCH 3/3] git-pull.sh: introduce --[no-]autostash and pull.autostash
- From
Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
- Date
- Mar 24, 2013, 21:12 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CALkWK0k0Ek0Dqxrrv7dAzUgF2X2hCcz2SodcPEgiRdLFgc-gXA@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <CALkWK0k=jei8Z+n-4O92obQOR88FR6iFCSifVhDDS8jv37rOjA@mail.gmail.com>
Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
Show 26 quoted lines
> Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com> writes: >> >>>>> + elif test "$autostash" = false >>>>> + then >>>>> require_clean_work_tree "pull with rebase" "Please commit or stash them." >>>>> fi >>>> >>>> A safety net, after you run "git stash", to validate that the >>>> added "git stash" indeed made the working tree clean, is necessary >>>> below, but there does not seem to be any. >>> >>> Um, isn't that part of the "git stash" testsuite? >> >> You should always "trust but verify" what other commands do at key >> points of the operation; and I think this "require-clean-work-tree" >> is a key precondition for this mode of operation to work correctly. >> >> Especially because you do not even bother to check the result of >> "git stash" before continuing ;-). > > If you think it's enough to replicate the codepath that precedes the > actual saving in 'git stash' (which is essentially > require-clean-work-tree), I'm in agreement with you. I thought you > were implying a wider safety net, that wouldn't even assume the basic > sanity of stash.
Er, s/codepath that precedes the actual saving in 'git stash'/codepath that precedes the actual pulling or merging in 'git pull'/
I'm feeling a little muddled up today; weekends are usually bad.