Re: [PATCH] builtin/stash: configs keepIndex, includeUntracked

> Ricardo C <rpc01234@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> This is an issue I hadn't considered, and I'm not sure whether it can
>> even be fixed. In some sense, the entire point of this patch is to
>> allow the user to break that promise in their configuration. However,
>> I'm not sure how big of a problem this is, as it is entirely opt-in
>> (default behavior should be the same as current behavior),
> 
> Correct.
> 
>> and tools
>> can be altered to pass `--no-keep-index --no-include-untracked` if
>> they wish to force the current behavior.
> 
> This is not.
> 
> People expect a bit better from Git, and such a callous disregard to
> backward compatibility that breaks other people's tools and scripts
> is a non-starter.
> 
> Users of such tools, whether they were written by themselves or
> other people, do *not* want them to break only because they want to
> use a shiny new feature that is advertised in a new version of Git.
> 
> The point of packaging a solution, the reason why they wroute such a
> tool or script that happens to use "git stash" as an ingredient and
> depends on the current behaviour of "git stash", is so that they do
> not need to remember they even used "git stash" as a small part of
> their solution.  And of course they do not want to remember that
> they rely on how "git stash" behaves in such a solution.  They do
> not even want to bother complaining loudly when such a change is
> proposed before it hits a release and hurt them.  Saying "nobody
> complained when these configuration variables were proposed" does
> not help anybody later, after we already hurt them.