From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 14:40:34 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] stash: introduce 'git stash store'
Message-ID: <7vbo8fosd9.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <1368449154-21882-5-git-send-email-artagnon@gmail.com>

Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com> writes:

> diff --git a/Documentation/git-stash.txt b/Documentation/git-stash.txt
> index 05e462b..e58ab74 100644
> --- a/Documentation/git-stash.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/git-stash.txt
> @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ SYNOPSIS
>  	     [-u|--include-untracked] [-a|--all] [<message>]]
>  'git stash' clear
>  'git stash' create [<message> [<include-untracked-p>]]
> +'git stash' store <commit> <message>

Two points:

 - We should not advertise "store" (and "create" for that matter) in
   the end-user facing documentation.  IIRC, "git stash -h"
   deliberately omits 'create'; having it in the documentation is
   unavoidable, but it was a mistake that it was not marked with
   "this is most likely not what you want to use; see 'save'".

   It may even be better with a leading underscore or two in the
   name that clearly marks it as "not meant for direct end-user
   consumption".

 - The error message store_stash() gives should not be hardcoded in
   that function.

   Save-stash may want to keep saying 'the current status' as it
   said before, but a caller like your rebase-autostash will not be
   saving the "current" status and would want to have a different
   message.

Other than that, the overfall structure of the patch looks OK to me.