Junio C Hamano wrote:
> [...]

I'm curious.  Why are you going back on what you said just one day
ago?  What changed?

In a previous email, you wrote:
> You are free to try to think of a way to tighten the implemention to
> reject a random two-or-three parent merge commit that is not a
> product of "stash create".  People already have looked at this code
> since it was written, and didn't find a reasonable way to tighten it
> without triggering false negatives, so I wouldn't be surprised if
> anybody tried it again today and failed.

So, my patch is not a "reasonable" way to achieve this?

> When was the last time you tried to run "git stash apply next"?

My patch is not solving an end-user problem.  Think of it as a source
code comment: to answer the question "what kind of commit does stash
create make?", the reader simple has to look at when IS_STASH_LIKE is
set.  It's helping make the source code clearer.  Previously,
IS_STASH_LIKE might as well have been named IS_MERGE_COMMIT, and
nothing would've changed.  The reader will wonder what IS_MERGE_COMMIT
has to do with stashes, so we named it IS_STASH_LIKE.  This is another
minor improvement in the same spirit.

> Is it worth it?

Is it worth what?  What are we losing?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to