From: Martin Langhoff <martin.langhoff@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 23:41:24 GMT
Subject: Re: git-stash: RFC: Adopt the default behavior to other commands
Message-ID: <46a038f90712181541x781c3ebcq6d85b88dbf5cbe23@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20071218154211.GB12549@alea.gnuu.de>

On Dec 19, 2007 4:42 AM, Jörg Sommer <joerg@alea.gnuu.de> wrote:
> I vote for stash print the list, because I dropped in the pitfall.

I've dropped there myself, and work with a large team where we are
both fans of stash, and scarred by it. Any newcomer to git that
"discovers" stash gets hit by it a dozen times, this is completely
unnecesary.

All state-changing commands need parameters or are interactive (as
it's the case with git-commit). That Johannes & early adopters,
including me, have gotten used to the unintuitive (and dangerously
surprising) behaviour of stash is no excuse to inflict it upon actual
end users. It's way too early for git and the stash command to stick
to a misfeature in the name of backwards compat. We'll adapt, as we
have in the past, to an evolving ui.

And if -- in a new repo -- the list is empty, we can just say so:
Nothing has been stashed yet. Which looks completely different from a
successful stash 'save' command.

cheers,


m