2.43+ git checkout --theirs on stash error - no alternative?

>
> What did you do before the bug happened? (Steps to reproduce your issue)
> git checkout 'stash@{0}' --theirs -- "some-file.txt"
>
> What did you expect to happen? (Expected behavior)
> Checking out the file exactly as it is in the stash with any conflicts
> resolved using the stash's data
>
> What happened instead? (Actual behavior)
> fatal: '--merge', '--ours', or '--theirs' cannot be used when checking
> out of a tree
>
> What's different between what you expected and what actually happened?
> Error and unresolved conflicts
>
> Anything else you want to add:
> This behavior was changed in 2.43
> https://www.spinics.net/lists/git/msg463600.html
> However, I think this change is wrong. Since using --theirs still
> makes sense, if you want to restore a file to the exact state it was
> in the stash.
> While the change probably had in mind that this should be used: git
> cherry-pick --no-commit --mainline 1 --strategy-option=theirs
> 'stash@{0}'
> This leads to different results than git checkout --theirs, since it
> tries to resolve the conflicts and is not correctly using "theirs" to
> automatically resolve them
> How can the pre 2.43 behavior be achieved?
>
> Please review the rest of the bug report below.
> You can delete any lines you don't wish to share.
>
>
> [System Info]
> git version:
> git version 2.43.5
> cpu: x86_64
> no commit associated with this build
> sizeof-long: 8
> sizeof-size_t: 8
> shell-path: /bin/sh
> uname: Linux 5.14.0-162.23.1.el9_1.x86_64 #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Tue
> Apr 11 19:09:37 UTC 2023 x86_64
> compiler info: gnuc: 11.4
> libc info: glibc: 2.34
> $SHELL (typically, interactive shell): /bin/bash
>
>
> [Enabled Hooks]

>
> On Sun, Oct 27, 2024 at 11:31:05PM +0100, Devste Devste wrote:
> > Turns out the previous behavior can be achieved with
> > git restore --source='stash@{0}' -- "some-file.txt"
>
> Hmm. What you wrote above here makes sense, but I agree with the
> original change from Junio (CC'd) that using `--theirs` does not make
> sense when the source is a tree-ish and not the index directly.
>
> This is different, though, since here you are just trying to check out
> the contents of some-file.txt at stash@{0}, without `--theirs`. What did
> you mean in the previous example, and why was `--theirs` necessary in
> the call there?
>
> Thanks,
> Taylor

> On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 at 00:38, Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 27, 2024 at 11:31:05PM +0100, Devste Devste wrote:
>> > Turns out the previous behavior can be achieved with
>> > git restore --source='stash@{0}' -- "some-file.txt"
>>
>> Hmm. What you wrote above here makes sense, but I agree with the
>> original change from Junio (CC'd) that using `--theirs` does not make
>> sense when the source is a tree-ish and not the index directly.
>>
>> This is different, though, since here you are just trying to check out
>> the contents of some-file.txt at stash@{0}, without `--theirs`. What did
>> you mean in the previous example, and why was `--theirs` necessary in
>> the call there?

>
> Devste Devste <devstemail@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 at 00:38, Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, Oct 27, 2024 at 11:31:05PM +0100, Devste Devste wrote:
> >> > Turns out the previous behavior can be achieved with
> >> > git restore --source='stash@{0}' -- "some-file.txt"
> >>
> >> Hmm. What you wrote above here makes sense, but I agree with the
> >> original change from Junio (CC'd) that using `--theirs` does not make
> >> sense when the source is a tree-ish and not the index directly.
> >>
> >> This is different, though, since here you are just trying to check out
> >> the contents of some-file.txt at stash@{0}, without `--theirs`. What did
> >> you mean in the previous example, and why was `--theirs` necessary in
> >> the call there?
>
> > "--theirs" was necessary since I want the file exactly as it is in the
> > stash - any conflicts from applying the file from stash should be
> > automatically resolved using the hunk from the stash
>
> But "--theirs" is to take their version unconditionally, isn't it?
> There is no "if conflicted take theirs", or "take theirs only in
> conflicted parts, but otherwise take a natural merge result".  At
> least, I do not recall writing the code to behave that way.
>
> So I am not sure if you are getting what you _think_ you are gettin
> by passing "--theirs".
>