{"thread":{"id":"60870","subject":"Interest in options for stash -k and -u by default","startedAt":"2024-02-07T20:59:57Z","lastAt":"2024-02-07T21:42:37Z","messageCount":3,"participants":["Ricardo C","Junio C Hamano","Kristoffer Haugsbakk"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"488178","messageId":"3470180e-2ef7-4393-9d32-92cd419727f5@gmail.com","threadId":"60870","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"Interest in options for stash -k and -u by default","fromName":"Ricardo C","fromEmail":"rpc01234@gmail.com","sentAt":"2024-02-07T20:59:54Z","receivedAt":"2024-02-07T20:59:57Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"rpc01234@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"Hello,\n\n\nAfter some discussion on Mastodon[1], I decided to try my hand at creating \nconfiguration options that enable --keep-index and --include-untracked in \ngit-stash by default. I have made a preliminary such patch[2], and some \nadditional discussion[3] has encouraged me to try submitting it upstream.\n\nI am wondering whether this change is something that would even be considered \nfor being accepted. The patch still needs some work (mainly documentation and \ntests), which I'd be happy to do if I knew there was upstream interest in this \nwork.\n\nI would also appreciate feedback on the patch. Currently, it creates two \nseparate options: stash.keepindex and stash.includeuntracked. These options \nset the default value of --keep-index and --include-untracked if not otherwise \nspecified (e.g., --no-keep-index) and do not conflict with other options \n(e.g., --patch). More details are of course available in the source code[2].\n\n\nThank you,\n\nRicardo \"MithicSpirit\" Prado Cunha\n\n\n[1] https://bsd.network/@ed1conf/111783574839749798\n\n[2] \nhttps://github.com/MithicSpirit/git/commit/f33c8d5d26d8438ddb123781bd5db3bff8618247.patch\n\n[3] https://social.jvns.ca/@b0rk/111880230506448122\n\n"},{"id":"488180","messageId":"xmqq34u46kzz.fsf@gitster.g","threadId":"60870","inReplyTo":"3470180e-2ef7-4393-9d32-92cd419727f5@gmail.com","subject":"Re: Interest in options for stash -k and -u by default","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2024-02-07T21:08:00Z","receivedAt":"2024-02-07T21:08:05Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Ricardo C writes:\n\n> I am wondering whether this change is something that would even be\n> considered for being accepted. The patch still needs some work (mainly\n> documentation and tests), which I'd be happy to do if I knew there was\n> upstream interest in this work.\n\nThere is a canned response for it ;-)\n\nI've seen from time to time people ask \"I am thinking of doing this;\nwill a patch be accepted? If so, I'll work on it.\" before showing\nany work, and my response always has been:\n\n (1) We don't know how useful and interesting your contribution would\n be for our audience, until we see it; and\n\n (2) If you truly believe in your work (find it useful, find writing\n it fun, etc.), that would be incentive enough for you to work\n on it, whether or not the result will land in my tree. You\n should instead aim for something so brilliant that we would\n come to you begging for your permission to include it in our\n project.\n\n"},{"id":"488183","messageId":"7c895747-22a1-48f6-89ce-d518fbd32285@app.fastmail.com","threadId":"60870","inReplyTo":"3470180e-2ef7-4393-9d32-92cd419727f5@gmail.com","subject":"Re: Interest in options for stash -k and -u by default","fromName":"Kristoffer Haugsbakk","fromEmail":"code@khaugsbakk.name","sentAt":"2024-02-07T21:42:16Z","receivedAt":"2024-02-07T21:42:37Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"code@khaugsbakk.name","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/2229597?v=4"},"body":"On Wed, Feb 7, 2024, at 21:59, Ricardo C wrote:\n> Hello,\n>\n>\n> After some discussion on Mastodon[1], I decided to try my hand at creating\n> configuration options that enable --keep-index and --include-untracked in\n> git-stash by default. I have made a preliminary such patch[2], and some\n> additional discussion[3] has encouraged me to try submitting it upstream.\n>\n> I am wondering whether this change is something that would even be considered\n> for being accepted. The patch still needs some work (mainly documentation and\n> tests), which I'd be happy to do if I knew there was upstream interest in this\n> work.\n>\n> I would also appreciate feedback on the patch. Currently, it creates two\n> separate options: stash.keepindex and stash.includeuntracked. These options\n> set the default value of --keep-index and --include-untracked if not otherwise\n> specified (e.g., --no-keep-index) and do not conflict with other options\n> (e.g., --patch). More details are of course available in the source code[2].\n\nThe way I understand it:\n\n• You already have a working implementation\n• There already exists conventions for using config variables for\n defaults which then can be in turn overridden using the corresponding\n flags (the `--[no]-` pair)\n\nSo what’s the hold-up? :)\n\n> I would also appreciate feedback on the patch.\n\nThat would be part of the patch series in any case.\n\n-- \nKristoffer Haugsbakk\n"}]}