Re: [RFC PATCH] stash: accept options also when subcommand 'save' is omitted

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Aug 18, 2009, 21:42 UTC
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.00.0908182337200.8306@pacific.mpi-cbg.de>
In-Reply-To: <20090818174509.GA27518@coredump.intra.peff.net>

Hi,

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009, Jeff King wrote:

Show 21 quoted lines

> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 03:01:52PM +0200, Matthieu Moy wrote:
> 
> > Hmm, googling a bit, I just noticed that there's already something in
> > pu:
> > ea41cfc4f (Make 'git stash -k' a short form for 'git stash save --keep-index')
> > which also does the trick, while adding a -k alias for --keep-index.
> >
> > [...]
> > 
> > Mine has at least two advantages:
> > 
> > * It won't require changing the code again when new options are added
> >   to 'git stash save'.
> > 
> > * It works with 'git stash -k -q' for example, while the other
> >   proposal checks that $# == 1, which won't work if there are more
> >   than one option.
> 
> I think yours is nicer, especially as we have just added the
> '-p|--patch' option, as well. With what is there now, you can do "git
> stash -p", but not "git stash -p -k".

But it is sloppy, in that it blindly accepts options that might be valid for several subcommands, not just "save".

That was the reason I did not implement it this way.

But we do not have such ambiguous options yet.

Or do we?  Look at what "list" accepts!

So please register my objection.

Ciao, Dscho