From: Phillip Wood Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2026 09:24:07 GMT Subject: Re: [BUG] stash.index=true leaves a redundant stash entry after an autostash fast-forward Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <0BCA251B-9536-46E3-A6C5-7F917366F92D@gmail.com> Hi Ben On 16/09/2026 15:30, Ben Knoble wrote: >> Le 16 sept. 2026 à 09:35, Phillip Wood a écrit : >> Taking a step back, this code applies the stashed index changes >> into the current index, writes the result to a tree and then resets >> the index to HEAD. We could avoid touching the index at all if we >> used merge_incore_nonrecursive() to cherry pick the index changes >> instead. That way we'd get a proper three-way merge and avoid >> spawning subprocesses for "git diff-tree", "git apply --cached", >> and "git reset". We're already using merge_ort_nonrecursive() to >> merge the working tree changes in that function so we have nearly >> everything we need already set up to merge the index changes as >> well. Essentially, when merging the index, we just need to call >> merge_incore_nonrecursive() instead of merge_ort_nonrecursive() >> and use info->i_tree instead of info->w_tree. > > Wow, I wish I’d had this info this morning! I spent a couple hours > trying to understand this flow and still don’t have it in my head :) > Thanks for the pointers. It is a bit confusing the way it updates the index, then resets it only to update it again at the end. I don't think we can avoid that though if we want to error out when there are conflicts merging the index. > I may try to summarize my own notes (= questions about the existing > code) and send those out later today, though, since I’d love to make > my understanding line up with yours! I'm happy to try and answer any questions, on or off the list - it would be really nice if we can merge the index changes and avoid a bunch a subprocesses. Thanks Phillip