From: D. Ben Knoble Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2026 12:05:18 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] stash: clean up index-mode test merge Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <346c4209-9600-4302-817f-e8f6b364ce6a@gmail.com> On Mon, Sep 28, 2026 at 5:50 AM Phillip Wood wrote: > > On 27/09/2026 20:21, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > "D. Ben Knoble" writes: > > > >> Hi all, > >> > >> This small patch series fixes a bug reported by Eli Barzilay in the > >> interaction between autostashing, staged index entries, and > >> stash.index=true. > >> > >> The first patch is an incidental cleanup, and the second re-arranges one > >> line to make the change easier. The third and fourth add missing test > >> coverage (which catch breakages from prior incorrect rounds of this > >> series), while the last holds the interesting bits. > > > > I may have reported this on the previous round, too, but 'seen' > > seems to break t5520 when this topic is merged. I'll eject the > > topic from my tree for now in the meantime. First I'm hearing about it, but I'll try to bisect seen and see what I can find. > I'm a bit stumped by that as the failing test (5520.69 '--rebase -f with > rebased upstream') does not stash anything. I wonder if a prior test is affected "silently" and we only find out by .69? > There seems to be something > funny going on with pull's fork-point detection. If I add GIT_TRACE=1 to > "git pull --rebase" then on 'seen' I see > > trace: built-in: git rebase --no-autostash --onto > ae9857430e281d178a3755aecfc5e29c46a02306 > f29aa667ce68e4d514557081ca7f54b12e108922 > > but with this series I see > > trace: built-in: git rebase --no-autostash --onto > ae9857430e281d178a3755aecfc5e29c46a02306 > ae9857430e281d178a3755aecfc5e29c46a02306 > > so the upstream commit has changed. The previous test also checks the > fork-point behavior and the failing test just runs "git reset --hard" at > the start rather than re-creating the reflogs which seems a bit iffy to > me but I've no idea why this series causes it to fail. I tried a merge > of 'master' and 'seen' just in case the failure was caused by the base > I'd used for this series but that passes. Thanks Phillip! -- D. Ben Knoble