Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] builtin/stash: merge index in-core

From: D. Ben Knoble <ben.knoble@gmail.com>
Date: Sep 25, 2026, 16:17 UTC
Message-ID: <CALnO6CDzbUMSAqLgZ_A1xx=XJPN1_HR-tJUDqG4-Q_xV2Ypzkg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <6e6420e8-3cbd-4975-a781-645e1ffbc1d2@gmail.com>

On Fri, Sep 25, 2026 at 12:04 PM Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Hi Junio
>
> On 24/09/2026 22:59, Junio C Hamano wrote:

[snip]

Show 13 quoted lines

> > Perhaps the true culprit in this confusion is that the order in
> > which merge_ort_nonrecursive() takes its three trees (head, merge,
> > and common) and the order in which merge_incore_nonrecursive() takes
> > its trees (merge_base, side1, and side2) are different, and if we
> > fix them to match, it would make it easier to work with?
>
> I think it is definitely worth fixing them to take the trees in the same
> order. My preference would be "base", "stage1", "stage2" but so long as
> they match each other I dont object to "stage1", "stage2", "base".
>
> Thanks
>
> Phillip

FWIW, I concur with changing them (and Phillip's preference of order), but I'll elect to leave that out of scope for this series.

-- 
D. Ben Knoble