From: Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 23:14:14 GMT
Subject: Re: Apparent bug in 'git stash push <subdir>' loses untracked files
Message-ID: <20171213231414.GD24597@hank>
In-Reply-To: <0692d5b8-5fc7-c34c-0712-11a913267441@gmail.com>

On 12/13, Igor Djordjevic wrote:
> Hi Reid,
> 
> On 13/12/2017 18:32, Reid Price wrote:
> > 
> > When running 'git stash push <subdir>' if there are both tracked and
> > untracked files in this subdirectory, the tracked files are stashed
> > but the untracked files are discarded.
> 
> I can reproduce this as well (git version 2.15.1.windows.2).
> 
> For what it`s worth, using `git stash save <subdir>` instead seems to 
> (still) work as expected...

I think that depends on what you expect ;)  'git stash save <subdir>'
will create a stash of the whole working directory with the message
"<subdir>".  So while it would indeed work for the presumably
simplified example Reid provided, it would not do what you'd expect if
there are any tracked and modified files outside of the <subdir>.

In that case 'git stash save <subdir>' would include the tracked files
outside of <subdir>, while what I assume Reid wanted is to keep them
in place, and only stash the files in <subdir>.

> but on the other hand, `git-stash`[1] 
> manpage seems not to mention this usage ("save" with "pathspec")?

"stash save" with "pathspec" doesn't exist, and it will probably never
exist.  We decided to introduce a new "push" verb for 'git stash'
because the command line for 'git stash save' takes a message as its
last argument, instead of taking the message with a -m flag like other
commands do.  Introducing a pathspec argument for "git stash save"
would have either broken backward compatibility, or it would have had
some syntax that's very inconsistent with other git commands.

> Regards, Buga
> 
> [1] https://git-scm.com/docs/git-stash