From: D. Ben Knoble Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2026 21:26:38 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] stash: clean up index-mode test merge Message-ID: In-Reply-To: On Tue, Sep 29, 2026 at 1:32 PM Ben Knoble wrote: > > > > Le 29 sept. 2026 à 11:48, Phillip Wood 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. I realized Junio wasn't CC'd on the prior mail, but since I re-rolled and the merge base changed, I think I've got it right for v5, which just went out. -- D. Ben Knoble