{"thread":{"id":"27683","subject":"Re: [PATCH] stash: Add --clean option to stash and remove all untracked files","startedAt":"2011-06-22T05:49:22Z","lastAt":"2011-06-22T05:49:22Z","messageCount":1,"participants":["David Caldwell"],"isPatch":true,"patchVersion":1,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"170446","messageId":"FD779A88A6134648D999E7C7@black.porkrind.org","threadId":"27683","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"Re: [PATCH] stash: Add --clean option to stash and remove all untracked files","fromName":"David Caldwell","fromEmail":"david@porkrind.org","sentAt":"2011-06-22T05:49:22Z","receivedAt":"2011-06-22T05:49:22Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"david@porkrind.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/45445?v=4"},"body":"On 6/21/11 5:23 PM -0400 Marc Branchaud wrote:\n\n> On 11-06-21 12:11 PM, Paul Ebermann wrote:\n>>\n>> I think `--also-untracked` sounds better. It is even longer, though.\n>>\n>> There could also be `--only-untracked`, which would stack only the\n>> untracked files (and let changes of tracked files there).\n>\n> Perhaps -uall to match git-status's -u[<mode>] option (and also the long\n> version thereof)?\n\nCurrently I'm playing with --include-untracked (-u) and --all (-a) while I \nfix a bug I found in the patch. I agree that --untracked sounds like it's \nonly stashing the untracked files which isn't the case. I wasn't going to \nhave an option to stash *just* the untracked files because I can't come up \nwith a use case that makes sense. I still like \"--clean\", too.\n\n-uall (like git status) isn't really the same thing which I think is \nconfusing since it has the same name.\n\n-David\n"}]}