From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "stash: require a clean index to apply" Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 00:03:25 -0400 Message-ID: <20150626040325.GA8559@peff.net> References: <20150610185635.GA22800@peff.net> <20150610192734.GA23715@peff.net> <20150615182721.GA4041@peff.net> <20150626002706.GA6367@peff.net> <558CA717.2040400@quantopian.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Junio C Hamano , =?utf-8?Q?b=C3=A4r?= , Git List To: Jonathan Kamens X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Jun 26 06:03:36 2015 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 1Z8KrX-0003eS-4E for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 06:03:35 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751704AbbFZEDb (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Jun 2015 00:03:31 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:52107 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751241AbbFZED3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Jun 2015 00:03:29 -0400 Received: (qmail 15659 invoked by uid 102); 26 Jun 2015 04:03:29 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.1) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Thu, 25 Jun 2015 23:03:29 -0500 Received: (qmail 13011 invoked by uid 107); 26 Jun 2015 04:03:30 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 00:03:30 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 26 Jun 2015 00:03:25 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <558CA717.2040400@quantopian.com> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 09:12:55PM -0400, Jonathan Kamens wrote: > I encountered this issue in git 2.4.3 on Fedora 22. Ah, sorry, you're right. I must have fed the wrong sha1 to "git tag --contains" earlier. I agree it can probably go onto the v2.4.x maintenance track. It is already in v2.5.0-rc0. -Peff