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

> On Dec 19, 2007 8:33 PM, Wincent Colaiuta <win@wincent.com> wrote:
>> El 19/12/2007, a las 0:41, Martin Langhoff escribió:
>>
>>> 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.
>> I may be missing something here, but what's the danger here? An
> 
> Surprise. Your working directory has *just* changed under your feet.
> Maybe you have an editor with further unsaved changes that is about to
> act confused whether you undo the stash or not.
> 
>> unexpected stash is incredibly easy to revert, unless I'm missing
> 
> Once you know about it, yes it is. Once you know about the reflog, you
> can sing and dance and never be worried. But for starting users, it's
> a dangerous command.
> 
>> And nobody commented on the idea I posted earlier which
>> seems to address the concerns about newbies not knowing what "git
>> stash" with no params does:
> 
> I agree with making stash more verbose -- if the unlucky new user is
> paying close attention, they'll have instructions on to how to get out
> of trouble. But I agree more with making it "just verbose, no action"
> by default. There are two strong hints:
> 
>  - all other state-changing commands take parameters
>  - quite a few people in this list have gotten burned with it
> 
> Even after knowing pretty well how stash works, I still get mixed up
> sometimes with the 'clear/clean/list' stuff. Or have a typo in the
> command.
>