Re: [RFC/PATCH 2/2] stash: drop dirty worktree check on apply

Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:

  The same "robustness" comments for the save_work function apply
  here.  You probably do not want to restore on a dirty tree; the
  intended use case is "stash away, pull, then restore", so I
  think it is Ok to assume that you will only be restoring on a
  clean state (and it would make the implementation simpler).

So perhaps there is no broken case at all, and it was just a matter of
being overly conservative from the beginning.

Perhaps.

If we are going to treat this as another mergy operation, we should at
least still make sure that the index is clean (i.e. "diff --cached" is
empty), I think.