Re: 1.5.4-rc2 plans

From: Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@gmail.com>
Date: Dec 21, 2007, 09:09 UTC
Message-ID: <8bd0f97a0712210109q7805d967sc9b4cd13d4131360@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <476B6ABB.6040009@viscovery.net>

On Dec 21, 2007 2:26 AM, Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@viscovery.net> wrote:

Show 16 quoted lines

> Junio C Hamano schrieb:
> >  * Should "git stash" stop doing anything useful?  I think the patch
> >    from Nana today may be a reasonable compromise, although I still
> >    think fundamentally different behaviour for the same command
> >    configurable per-user is not very nice (we have precedent in "git
> >    clean" already, though, but "git clean" is inherently dangerous
> >    command, and "git stash" is much more useful and the issue impacts
> >    more people).
>
> IMO we should give in and play the safe game. For those who don't like to
> type "git stash save" can always
>
>     git config --global alias.shelve "stash save"
>     git config --global alias.unshelve "stash apply"
>
> and retrain the fingers.

in the past, i used git merely to checkout code and send diffs to maintainers ... never for my own work. ive started to transition from using svn everywhere to trying out git, and saw reference to this "stash" command on another list. i wanted to learn more about it, so i started off with `git-stash` to get some info, and wondered what just happened. then i typoed the --help option and wondered even more what just happened :).

after flipping through the git mailing list for a while, it's good to see that `git stash <random crap>` will be fixed in the next release, and yes the default behavior of saving is confusing. the argument that newbies can easily recover their work really only works if the newbie knows what's going on. if they knew from the start, then they wouldnt be newbies eh.

making the default behavior non-destructive (which is to say, not changing anything) and allowing people to arbitrarily configure the default behavior sounds sane to me. taking it up a level, people could just as easily write functions in their shell environment to do the same thing. which is to say that imho, the argument against this for fear of different behavior depending on user is over the top. configuration options are there to change the behavior based on the user's preference. -mike