From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Robin Rosenberg Subject: Re: Behavior of stash apply vs merge Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 20:09:56 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <2043716001.1806075.1359313796808.JavaMail.root@dewire.com> References: <7vvcaiwltj.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Git List To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Jan 27 20:10:21 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TzXcT-0004Wp-42 for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Sun, 27 Jan 2013 20:10:21 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755049Ab3A0TJ7 (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Jan 2013 14:09:59 -0500 Received: from zimbra.dewire.com ([83.140.172.131]:39284 "EHLO zimbra.dewire.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754755Ab3A0TJ6 (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Jan 2013 14:09:58 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.dewire.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47EEF8272D; Sun, 27 Jan 2013 20:09:57 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at dewire.se Received: from zimbra.dewire.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.dewire.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 398dfgN1t308; Sun, 27 Jan 2013 20:09:56 +0100 (CET) Received: from zimbra.dewire.com (zimbra.dewire.com [10.1.2.96]) by zimbra.dewire.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1EF2826F3; Sun, 27 Jan 2013 20:09:56 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <7vvcaiwltj.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> X-Originating-IP: [10.9.0.2] X-Mailer: Zimbra 7.2.0_GA_2681 (ZimbraWebClient - FF3.0 (Mac)/7.2.0_GA_2681) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Thanks. Feeling a bit studid now. I was actually thinking about using merge to implement stash apply in JGit. What we have is broken so I tried using merge to implement it and them compared to git merge --no-commit.. FAIL. The main difference is of course that I set the merge base to stash^1, which is obviously not what my question was about. -- robin