Re: git-stash: RFC: Adopt the default behavior to other commands

> Andreas Ericsson <ae@op5.se> writes:
>> Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>>> On Tue, 18 Dec 2007, Andreas Ericsson wrote:
>>>> Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In the alternative, you could just scrap all those default
>>>>> actions, showing synopses instead.  For all commands, including
>>>>> "git commit", "git log", "git fetch", etc.
>>>> Like we do for the git wrapper, you mean? Yes, that would be one
>>>> solution, although not a very good one for all commands.
>>> Exactly.  Not a good one.
>>>
>>>> It's probably not a bad idea for commands where the primary use is
>>>> something else than producing visual output though, such as tag or
>>>> branch, but those handle creation/deletion of stuff, so the default
>>>> action for them is to list stuff of the kind they operate on. I
>>>> fail to see why stash should be any different.
>>> I also fail to see why stash should be any different.  And that's why
>>> I expect it to have a default operation, which is -- you guessed it -- 
>>> "stash the changes!"
>> Actually, I guessed "list the stashes".
>>
>>> If I am not sure what I am about to do, there is -- wonder of wonders -- 
>>> the "-h" option!  And indeed:
>>> 	$ git stash -h
>>> 	Usage: /home/gitte/bin/git-stash [  | save | list | show |
>>> apply | 		clear | create ]
>>> So what exactly was your point again?
>>>
>> My point is that it would be nice if all git commands that actually
>> manipulate objects (create/delete/modify) had a safe default, and
>> that experienced users such as yourself could endure the insufferable
>> agony of retraining your fingers to type five more chars so that
>> people won't have to get bitten by surprises.
> 
> Also for "git commit"?
> 

> In my opinion _basic_ usage of git-stash is simply using it with
> one stash only: "git stash" / "git unstash" (i.e. "git stash apply";
> by the way this is one (beside "git view") use case for builtin
> predefined aliases).  Using it with multiple stashes (only then
> "git stash list" is needed) is advanced usage; and for advanced
> usage longer form is preferred, I think.
>