Jeff King writes:
> It seems like applying a stash made with "-k" is fundamentally
> misdesigned in the current code. We would want to apply to the working
> tree the difference between the index and the working tree, but instead
> we try to apply the difference between the HEAD and the working t
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> I dunno. With respect to the original patch, I am OK if we just want to
> revert it. This area of stash seems a bit under-designed IMHO, but if
> people were happy enough with it before, I do not think the safety
> benefit from ed178ef is that gr
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:16:25PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King writes:
>
> > So I am trying to figure out what the use case here is. Clearly the
> > above is a toy case, but why is "stash -k" followed by a quick pop
> > useful in general? Certainly I use "stash" (without "-k") and a
Jeff King writes:
> So I am trying to figure out what the use case here is. Clearly the
> above is a toy case, but why is "stash -k" followed by a quick pop
> useful in general? Certainly I use "stash" (without "-k") and a quick
> pop all the time, and I think that is what stash was designed for.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 03:19:41PM -0300, bär wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Jeff King wrote:
> > Hrm. The new protection in v2.4.2 is meant to prevent you from losing
> > your index state during step 4 when we run into a conflict. But here you
> > know something that git doesn't: that
On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Jeff King wrote:
> Hrm. The new protection in v2.4.2 is meant to prevent you from losing
> your index state during step 4 when we run into a conflict. But here you
> know something that git doesn't: that we just created the stash based on
> this same state, so it sh
On Sun, Jun 07, 2015 at 08:40:01AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> Are you running flake8 across the whole tree, or just on the files with
> proposed changes? Does it need to see the whole tree? If you can get
> away with feeding it single files, then it should be very efficient to
> loop over the outpu
On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 08:43:00PM -0400, Jonathan Kamens wrote:
> I'm writing about the patch that Jeff King submitted on April 22, in
> <20150422193101.gc27...@peff.net>, in particular,
> https://github.com/git/git/commit/ed178ef13a26136d86ff4e33bb7b1afb5033f908 .
> It appears that this patch wa
I'm writing about the patch that Jeff King submitted on April 22, in
<20150422193101.gc27...@peff.net>, in particular,
https://github.com/git/git/commit/ed178ef13a26136d86ff4e33bb7b1afb5033f908
. It appears that this patch was included in git 2.4.2, and it breaks my
workflow.
In particular, I
9 matches
Mail list logo
