Re: [RFC] New command: 'git snapshot'.
- From
- Fabio Augusto Dal Castel <fdcastel@gmail.com>
- Date
- Feb 11, 2009, 20:40 UTC
- Message-ID
- <38cfbb550902111240v6e593bfw5c8347d92fe8f767@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <vpq3aelcpjk.fsf@bauges.imag.fr>
> Doesn't that argue for "git stash --no-reset" or similar instead of a > separate command?
Yes. And also for an "--untracked" (as already suggested).
Since stashes does not expire anymore (as correctly pointed by Brandon), a snapshot could be reduced to an alias for:
git stash --no-reset --untracked
(except for the branch storage)
However, the rationale behind a new command was also to avoid the 'loss of identity' of stash (as currently implemented). I always saw stash as a way to allow a temporary hack or a pull. If we start adding a lot of switches into stash that ultimately would change its main purpose, should it yet be called 'stash'? (something like a 'git commit --no-commit' ?)
(Please, don't get me wrong: I'm just raising food for thoughts, here)
Maybe the 'stash' command and multiples switches would be more appropriate if 'reset' was NOT the default behavior. Something like:
git stash [--untracked] [--reset]
where the current 'git stash' would be 'git stash --reset'.Of course, this would be a significant breaking change.
I know... I know... "Heresy!" You'd say... <g>
But... what about it? Why, after all, stash MUST do a reset?
"Do one thing. Do it well"?
Regards! Fabio.