From: edgar.hipp@netapsys.fr
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 06:59:08 GMT
Subject: Re: Proposal for git stash : add --staged option
Message-ID: <5e4970b583a71bb577b0f8b8b9b7828c@netapsys.fr>
In-Reply-To: <0082a449b4d1723cb557ac353a04c3af@www.dscho.org>

Hi,


the

> ```sh
> git add config_real.xml
> git stash -k
> git reset
> ```

is not very well suited because the -k option to keep the index. 
However, the index will still be put inside the stash.

So what you propose is equivalent to:

```sh
git stash
git stash apply stash@\{0\}
git checkout --config_test.xml
```

`git stash --patch` can do the job (and I think that's what I'm going to 
use from now), but it's still a bit cumbersome in some situations.

Best,

Edgar

Le 2015-04-22 11:25, Johannes Schindelin a écrit :
> Hi Edgar,
> 
> On 2015-04-22 10:30, edgar.hipp@netapsys.fr wrote:
> 
>> When you have a lot of unstaged files, and would like to test what
>> happens if you undo some of the changes that you think are unecessary,
>> you would rather keep a copy of those changes somewhere.
>> 
>> For example
>> 
>> Changed but not updated:
>>     M config_test.xml
>>     M config_real.xml
>> 
>> I have changed both config_test.xml and config_real.xml, but I think
>> the changes made in config_test.xml are unnecessary. However, I would
>> still like to keep them somewhere in case it breaks something.
>> 
>> In this case for example, I would like to be able to stash only the
>> file config_test.xml
>> 
>> Eg:
>> 
>> git add config_test.xml
>> git stash --staged
>> 
>> So that after this, my git looks like this:
>> 
>> Changed but not updated:
>>     M config_real.xml
>> 
>> and my stash contains only the changes introduced in config_test.xml
>> 
>> `git stash --keep-index` doesn't give the necessary control, because
>> it will still stash everything (and create unnecessary merge
>> complications if I change the files and apply the stash)
> 
> I often have the same problem. How about doing this:
> 
> ```sh
> git add config_real.xml
> git stash -k
> git reset
> ```
> 
> The difference between our approaches is that I keep thinking of the
> staging area as the place to put changes I want to *keep*, not that I
> want to forget for a moment.
> 
> Having said that, I am sympathetic to your cause, although I would
> rather have `git stash [--patch] -- [<file>...]` that would be used
> like `git add -p` except that the selected changes are *not* staged,
> but stashed instead.
> 
> Ciao,
> Johannes