Re: [FEATURE] Proposal: git stash --only-unstaged

>
> Hi Ben
>
> On 29/08/2025 14:30, D. Ben Knoble wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 9:06 AM Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I think the example works but may generate conflicts when the stash is
> >> popped. One can argue that the conflicts are unnecessary because they
> >> could be avoided by popping the unstaged changes but I don't think the
> >> example is broken as such.
> >
> > Thanks, let me try to rephrase: the example makes no mention of
> > conflicts appearing or having to adjust them. It seems to heavily
> > imply to me that no such conflicts are expected, though as we
> > discussed upthread it seems unlikely you _won't_ get conflicts if you
> > do
>
> Yes, I think if you edit any staged changes (that is the lines that
> differed between the index and HEAD when "git stash" was run) you'll end
> up with conflicts. If you edit a line where the index, HEAD and the
> worktree matched when the stash was created then I don't think you will
> see a conflict. Overall conflicts seem pretty likely, so maybe we should
> mention them in the documentation.

> > [...]
> > I suppose my main complaint is nothing about the example makes it
> > clear that's the intended use case to me? Hence
> > - we could change the example to mention conflicts and/or use case
> > (smaller patch, punts on the problem)
> > - we could change the code to accommodate the example as written
> > (using ideas from your script; harder but bigger win IMO?)
>
> I was hoping that we'd hear back from J. Dettweiler as to whether the
> ideas in the script were useful. It would certainly be better to update
> the command to avoid conflicts if we can.