Re: [PATCH] stash: tighten IS_STASH_LIKE logic

From: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
Date: Apr 19, 2013, 05:57 UTC
Message-ID: <CALkWK0m_Nt8SFdjGKWWHtBJ+HVsk095ukjZ0N=KBt5q+or5XFQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7vk3nz4h20.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

Junio C Hamano wrote:

> [...]

I'm curious. Why are you going back on what you said just one day ago? What changed?

In a previous email, you wrote:

Show 6 quoted lines

> You are free to try to think of a way to tighten the implemention to
> reject a random two-or-three parent merge commit that is not a
> product of "stash create".  People already have looked at this code
> since it was written, and didn't find a reasonable way to tighten it
> without triggering false negatives, so I wouldn't be surprised if
> anybody tried it again today and failed.

So, my patch is not a "reasonable" way to achieve this?

> When was the last time you tried to run "git stash apply next"?

My patch is not solving an end-user problem. Think of it as a source code comment: to answer the question "what kind of commit does stash create make?", the reader simple has to look at when IS_STASH_LIKE is set. It's helping make the source code clearer. Previously, IS_STASH_LIKE might as well have been named IS_MERGE_COMMIT, and nothing would've changed. The reader will wonder what IS_MERGE_COMMIT has to do with stashes, so we named it IS_STASH_LIKE. This is another minor improvement in the same spirit.

> Is it worth it?

Is it worth what?  What are we losing?