>
>
> > Le 29 sept. 2026 à 11:48, Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com> a écrit :
> >
> > Hi Ben
> >
> >> On 29/09/2026 13:18, D. Ben Knoble wrote:
> >> Changes in v4:
> >> • Drop merge verbosity changes altogether. I was going to
> >>   save-and-restore, but when looking at the index-merge test case (more
> >>   below) closer, I noticed that "git apply --cached" reports conflicts
> >>   on stderr. That is, "git stash apply --index" would report conflicts,
> >>   and silencing the merge takes that away. So instead let's leave the
> >>   configured verbosity alone.
> >> • Only copy resulting index merge tree OID when successful
> >> • Fix interaction with t5520 (new patch 4/5)
> >> • Squash test from 3/5 into 5/5, since it requires actually merging
> >>   trees. I've elected to keep it a separate test for now (contrary to
> >>   Phillip's suggestion) since it's written and working. Adapting
> >>   existing tests requires quite a bit more digging into implicit context
> >>   assumptions ;)
> >
> > I've left a comment on the new patch 4, but everything else in the range-diff looks ready to me.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Phillip
>
> Thanks Phillip. Pending other positive acks, I’m not sure if I should reroll with Thomas’s new patch, reroll dropping it now there’s a seen topic for it, or just wait ;)
>
> I’ll probably wait a bit and see how the dust settles, but:
>
> Junio if you want to see a reroll hit the list using the new synthetic base to make things nicer for you, I can do so. In particular, I think the last check I made when I saw your mail about the synthetic base had the prior round.