On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Vasily Titskiy <[hidden email]> wrote:
> As stash does not know how to deal with submodules,
> it should not try to save/restore their states
> as it leads to redundant merge conflicts.
> Added test checks if 'stash pop' does not trigger merge conflics
Re: [PATCH v2] Ignore dirty submodule states during stash
The command does nothing, so it's not needed. There is also a typo in
my patch description, so I'll resend it again with needed changes.
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 1:04 PM, Junio C Hamano <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Vasily Titskiy <[hidden email]> writes:
>> You're right, it's redundant here. Should I resubmit the path without this line?
> I wasn't pointing out that it was not needed. I was only asking
> what it was meant to do.
> If you now think it shouldn't have been there, that merely means
> your code was wrong. It does not mean I'm right ;-)
> With that line removed, would the patch now becomes right? Are
> there other bugs?