Ramkumar Ramachandra <artag...@gmail.com> writes: > 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?",
There already is sufficient comment that explains how a stash commit is constructed, isn't it? I may have forgotten to say this, but we were helped by the logic that makes sure we can read what we need to carry out the operation and nothing more in the then-current (which is the same as current) code that was written before we added --include-untracked. If the check were enforcing that a stash-like must be a two parent merge, which may have seemed reasonable back when the stash-like logic was written, it would have been more painful to add three parent possibility while still allowing people to use different vintage of Git in the same repository. Insisting on the i-commit and w-commit to have exactly the same parent would mean that somebody who wants to improve create-stash has one less option---even when the easiest and/or cleanest way to improve create-stash for the particular goal were to record these two commits based on a different parents, the requirement the patch is trying to add here will prevent her from doing so and force her to work around the pointless (read: not necessary when the current code shows or applies the stash) check. >> Is it worth it? > > Is it worth what? What are we losing? The risk of actually closing the door for future developers. That is a downside of this patch, if we were to apply it. And having to spend braincycles to worry about what door we may be unintentionally closing. That's a downside of even discussing this patch. -- 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
