From: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:52:20 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] pull: introduce --[no-]autostash and pull.autostash
Message-ID: <CALkWK0mzv8YZS8hctun-k-CnEzWo3TbJwmFX+Z4En8UHjNd5ww@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <vpqmwszlqek.fsf@grenoble-inp.fr>

Matthieu Moy wrote:
> No, they don't.  Git forbids redefining commands with aliases. They may
> have an alias like "git pullauto" or so, but not "git pull".

Ofcourse, but you get the point.  I use p for push, and pu for pull myself.

> There's not much we can do about it now, as Git cannot guess whether a
> stash is to be re-applied later or just kept "in case". My main use of
> "git stash" is "I want a reset --hard, but stash is safer", I wouldn't
> want "status" to remind me when I have a stash because it is almost
> always the case.
>
> Showing the "autostash" status in "git status" would make sense OTOH,
> but I agree that it's another topic.

If the HEAD of the stash contains a stash beginning with the message
"pull.autostash: ", show it in the status.  End of story.

Anyway, no point arguing about this since we've decided not to pursue
pull.autostash anyway.