Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> writes:
> Keith Smiley <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > In the case there are no files to stash, but the user asked to stash, we
> > should exit 1 since the stashing failed.
> > ---
>
> Sorry, but I fail to see why this is a good change. Did you have
> some script that wanted the exit code from "git stash" to indicate
> if it had anything to stash and change the behaviour based on it?
>
> Is it a big enough hassle to figure out if the "stash" command did
> something yourself that justifies forcing existing scripts that rely
> on "no-op is merely a normal exit" behaviour other people have
> written in the past several years?
The problem with current behaviour is it makes it hard to use stash in
scripts. A natural stash use case is: wrap some operation requiring a
clean working tree with a stash push-pop pair. But that doesn't work
properly when working tree is already clean - push silently does nothing
and following pop becomes unbalanced. You have to keep that in mind and
work around with something like:
if ! git diff-index --exit-code --quiet HEAD
then
git stash push
trap 'git stash pop' EXIT
fi
With this change this can be simplified to:
git stash push && trap 'git stash pop' EXIT
I don't mind keeping this new behaviour behind an option for
compatibility. Or alternatively resolve this use case by supporting
--allow-empty in stash-push. But my feeling is it is natural for 'git
stash push' to report error for no-op case because the command is
explicitly about creating new stash entries. A close analogy is 'git
commit' which errors on no-op. Contrary all commands treating no-op as a
success I'm aware of are not about creating new objects but about
querying or syncing.
