From: 重田一聖 Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2026 06:34:40 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] stash: expose untracked modes in create Message-ID: In-Reply-To: > 'git stash create' does not have to be fully capable of doing > so with the current topic alone, but do you agree that improving > 'create' in such a way should be our long-term goal? Yes, I agree. > Shouldn't 'stash create --foo' work the same way as > 'stash push --foo' while creating the stash entry, if '--foo' is > not an option relevant only to 'stash store'? Yes, that's exactly what I had in mind. > If the wish is "we want to start small because thinking about > each and every one of them and making sure they work correctly > is too much work for my liking", I would understand. Yes, that is what I meant. When you asked why I was singling out `-u` and `-a`, I went back and examined the other options. I'm glad I did. It helped me understand `stash create` better. Thank you for raising that question. But when I tried to explain why I wanted to leave the other options out, I gave a poor reason. Sorry for the confusion. With that in mind, I'd like to limit this patch to `-m/-q/-u/-a` and leave `--patch`, `--staged`, and pathspec support for follow-up patches. Does that sound reasonable? Thanks, Kazumasa Shigeta