On 03/15, Marc Strapetz wrote: > On 14.03.2018 22:46, Thomas Gummerer wrote: > >Currently 'git stash push -u -- <pathspec>' prints the following errors > >if <pathspec> only matches untracked files: > > > > fatal: pathspec 'untracked' did not match any files > > error: unrecognized input > > > >This is because we first clean up the untracked files using 'git clean > ><pathspec>', and then use a command chain involving 'git add -u > ><pathspec>' and 'git apply' to clear the changes to files that are in > >the index and were stashed. > > > >As the <pathspec> only includes untracked files that were already > >removed by 'git clean', the 'git add' call will barf, and so will 'git > >apply', as there are no changes that need to be applied. > > > >Fix this by making sure to only call this command chain if there are > >still files that match <pathspec> after the call to 'git clean'. > > > >Reported-by: Marc Strapetz <marc.strap...@syntevo.com> > >Signed-off-by: Thomas Gummerer <t.gumme...@gmail.com> > >--- > > > >>Either way I'll try to address this as soon as I can get some > >>time to look at it. > > > >I finally got around to do this. The fix (in the second patch) turns > >out to be fairly simple, I just forgot to pass the pathspec along to > >one function whene originally introducing the pathspec feature in git > >stash push (more explanation in the commit message for the patch > >itself). Thanks Marc for reporting the two breakages! > > Thanks, I confirm that both issues are resolved. There is another issue now > which seems to be a regression. When *successfully* stashing an untracked > file, local modifications of other files are cleared, too. > > $ git init > $ touch file1 > $ git add file1 > $ git commit -m "initial import" > $ echo "a" > file1 > $ touch file2 > $ git status --porcelain > M file1 > ?? file2 > $ git stash push -u -- file2 > Saved working directory and index state WIP on master: 25352d7 initial > import > $ git status > On branch master > nothing to commit, working tree clean > > Hence, by stashing just "file2" the local modification of "file1" became > reset.
Ah yes, this is indeed a regression, thanks for catching it. I'll fix it in the re-roll and add another test for this case. Sorry about the false starts here :/ > -Marc > > > >
