Re: [PATCH 0/2] git stash drop stash@{2.days.ago}

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

> Because 'stash' is implemented in terms of the reflog, it can accept
> not only a small integer index (such as 'stash@{4}') but also a
> time-based reference.  This is not a good thing.
>
>  - 'git stash pop stash@{2.days.ago}' picks the first stash entry
>    that is no younger than the specified time and uses it to modify
>    the working tree and the index, but then removes all stash
>    entries that are no younger than that specified time.
>
>  - 'git stash drop stash@{2.days.ago}' does the same, except that
>    no entry is used to affect the working tree and the index.
>
> These two patches forbid passing time-based stash references to the
> 'git stash drop' and 'git stash pop' commands as minor safety
> improvements.
>
>  1/2: stash: record positional index in 'struct stash_info'
>  2/2: stash: reject time-based selectors in drop and pop
>
>  Documentation/git-stash.adoc |  8 ++++++++
>  builtin/stash.c              | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
>  t/t3903-stash.sh             | 13 +++++++++++++
>  3 files changed, 39 insertions(+)

Sorry, it turns out that the collateral damange claim was completely
bogus.  We do abuse the reflog expiration machinery but make sure we
only remove a single entry, it seems, so only one entry is consumed
and then removed.  Consider these patches retracted.

Thanks.