Re: [PATCH v3 5/6] stash: apply stash using 'merge_ort_nonrecursive()'
flat view
From: Elijah Newren <hidden>
Date: 2022-05-12 14:51:51
On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 4:32 PM Victoria Dye via GitGitGadget [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
From: Victoria Dye <redacted> Update 'stash' to use 'merge_ort_nonrecursive()' to apply a stash to the current working tree. When 'git stash apply' was converted from its shell script implementation to a builtin in 8a0fc8d19d (stash: convert apply to builtin, 2019-02-25), 'merge_recursive_generic()' was used to merge a stash into the working tree as part of 'git stash (apply|pop)'. However, with the single merge base used in 'do_apply_stash()', the commit wrapping done by 'merge_recursive_generic()' is not only unnecessary, but misleading (the *real* merge base is labeled "constructed merge base"). Therefore, a non-recursive merge of the working tree, stashed tree, and stash base tree is more appropriate. There are two options for a non-recursive merge-then-update-worktree function: 'merge_trees()' and 'merge_ort_nonrecursive()'. Use 'merge_ort_nonrecursive()' to align with the default merge strategy used by 'git merge' (6a5fb96672 (Change default merge backend from recursive to ort, 2021-08-04)) and, because merge-ort does not operate in-place on the index, avoid unnecessary index expansion. Update tests in 't1092' verifying index expansion for 'git stash' accordingly. Signed-off-by: Victoria Dye <redacted> --- builtin/stash.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++----- t/t1092-sparse-checkout-compatibility.sh | 4 ++-- 2 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)diff --git a/builtin/stash.c b/builtin/stash.c index 1bfba532044..3fe549f7d3c 100644 --- a/builtin/stash.c +++ b/builtin/stash.c@@ -7,6 +7,7 @@ #include "cache-tree.h" #include "unpack-trees.h" #include "merge-recursive.h" +#include "merge-ort-wrappers.h" #include "strvec.h" #include "run-command.h" #include "dir.h"@@ -492,13 +493,13 @@ static void unstage_changes_unless_new(struct object_id *orig_tree) static int do_apply_stash(const char *prefix, struct stash_info *info, int index, int quiet) { - int ret; + int clean, ret; int has_index = index; struct merge_options o; struct object_id c_tree; struct object_id index_tree; - struct commit *result; - const struct object_id *bases[1]; + struct tree *head, *merge, *merge_base; + struct lock_file lock = LOCK_INIT; read_cache_preload(NULL); if (refresh_and_write_cache(REFRESH_QUIET, 0, 0))@@ -541,6 +542,7 @@ static int do_apply_stash(const char *prefix, struct stash_info *info, o.branch1 = "Updated upstream"; o.branch2 = "Stashed changes"; + o.ancestor = "Stash base"; if (oideq(&info->b_tree, &c_tree)) o.branch1 = "Version stash was based on";@@ -551,10 +553,26 @@ static int do_apply_stash(const char *prefix, struct stash_info *info, if (o.verbosity >= 3) printf_ln(_("Merging %s with %s"), o.branch1, o.branch2); - bases[0] = &info->b_tree; + head = lookup_tree(o.repo, &c_tree); + merge = lookup_tree(o.repo, &info->w_tree); + merge_base = lookup_tree(o.repo, &info->b_tree); + + repo_hold_locked_index(o.repo, &lock, LOCK_DIE_ON_ERROR); + clean = merge_ort_nonrecursive(&o, head, merge, merge_base);
A very minor nit: I actually have a minor dislike for the merge-ort-wrappers, but I included them in case people objected to the slightly more verbose real API. I assumed it'd only be used to convert existing calls to merge_trees() and merge_recursive(); in this case you were converting a call to merge_recursive_generic(), so I would have preferred using merge_incore_nonrecursive(). That might have answered Jonathan's question better too when he saw the explicit merge_switch_to_result() call. However, it's a minor point; I'm not sure it's worth a re-roll. This series looks good to me: Reviewed-by: Elijah Newren <redacted>