From: Junio C Hamano Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2026 17:15:26 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] stash push: remove duplicate changes detection Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <725487d3-5a07-40c6-a603-990a661e0193@gmail.com> Phillip Wood writes: >> Before the precontext of this hunk, repo_refresh_and_write_index() >> is called to refresh the index. We used to leave early when >> check_changes() saw no need to save. We no longer do so, and >> instead keep going. >> >>> @@ -1743,8 +1737,15 @@ static int do_push_stash(const struct pathspec *ps, const char *stash_msg, int q >>> >>> if (stash_msg) >>> strbuf_addstr(&stash_msg_buf, stash_msg); >>> - if (do_create_stash(ps, &stash_msg_buf, include_untracked, patch_mode, >>> - interactive_opts, only_staged, &info, &patch, quiet)) { >>> + ret = do_create_stash(ps, &stash_msg_buf, include_untracked, >>> + patch_mode, interactive_opts, only_staged, &info, >>> + &patch, quiet); >> >> And we call do_create_stash(). The first thing it does is to call >> repo_read_index_preload() and repo_refresh_and_write_index(). >> >> Are we refreshing the index twice now, even though we know nothing >> has changed in between, when we run "git stash push"? > > We've always been doing that when there is something to stash (which is > the normal case). So when there is nothing to stash, we only refreshed once but now refreshing twice is not a regression? > To avoid that we need to make the callers of do_create_stash() > responsible for refreshing the index. At the moment > create_stash() calls do_create_stash() without evening reading the > index, but do_push_stash() needs to read the index to check if it > the pathspec contains paths that don't match the index. That would > also avoid calling preload_index() multiple times. Yes, that exactly is the right direction. Then we can reduce the number of check_changes() without increasing the number of refreshes, right? Thanks.