Re: [PATCH 0/3] short syntaxes for 'git stash'

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Aug 18, 2009, 23:31 UTC
Message-ID: <20090818233153.GA6304@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <1250631523-10524-1-git-send-email-Matthieu.Moy@imag.fr>

On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 11:38:40PM +0200, Matthieu Moy wrote:

Show 8 quoted lines

> This small patch serie is based on the following commit in pu:
> 
> dda1f2a Implement 'git stash save --patch'
> 
> It is meant to replace two commits already there:
> 
> ea41cfc Make 'git stash -k' a short form for 'git stash save --keep-index'
> f300fab DWIM 'git stash save -p' for 'git stash -p'

Actually, these are already in 'next', so they can't be simply replaced. So you would need to re-roll patches 1 and 2 at the very least.

However, thinking more on it, I think we can address Dscho's concern with your proposal to accept only a limited set of options. And looking at what's in f300fab, it actually does make an attempt to allow multiple options, but it doesn't cover all cases (e.g., I can use "-p --no-keep-index" but not "--no-keep-index -p". Nor can I do "-p -k"; even though "-k" is implied by "-p", you will get a very strange usage mention instead of it being a silent no-op).

So there are two issues:

  - refactoring to allow arbitrary combinations of -k/-p and variants.

  - allowing other options; I believe "-q" is the only one. That seems
    to be specific to Dscho's objection, as it is ambiguous with other
    subcommands. Though "-p" may also become ambiguous, if we get "stash
    apply -p" soon.

I think the first one should be fairly uncontroversial. I'm not sure about the second.

-Peff