Re: [RFC] stash --continue

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Jan 18, 2017, 16:34 UTC
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1701181725130.3469@virtualbox>
In-Reply-To: <d5456165-bdf2-e9e7-117f-aeab0ff4b417@xiplink.com>

Hi Marc,

On Wed, 18 Jan 2017, Marc Branchaud wrote:

Show 23 quoted lines

> On 2017-01-16 05:54 AM, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 16 Jan 2017, Stephan Beyer wrote:
> >
> > > a git-newbie-ish co-worker uses git-stash sometimes. Last time he
> > > used "git stash pop", he got into a merge conflict. After he
> > > resolved the conflict, he did not know what to do to get the
> > > repository into the wanted state. In his case, it was only "git add
> > > <resolved files>" followed by a "git reset" and a "git stash drop",
> > > but there may be more involved cases when your index is not clean
> > > before "git stash pop" and you want to have your index as before.
> > >
> > > This led to the idea to have something like "git stash
> > > --continue"[1]
> >
> > More like "git stash pop --continue". Without the "pop" command, it
> > does not make too much sense.
> 
> Why not?  git should be able to remember what stash command created the
> conflict.  Why should I have to?  Maybe the fire alarm goes off right when I
> run the stash command, and by the time I get back to it I can't remember
> which operation I did.  It would be nice to be able to tell git to "just
> finish off (or abort) the stash operation, whatever it was".

That reeks of a big potential for confusion.

Imagine for example a total Git noob who calls `git stash list`, scrolls two pages down, then hits `q` by mistake. How would you explain to that user that `git stash --continue` does not continue showing the list at the third page?

Even worse: `git stash` (without arguments) defaults to the `save` operation, so any user who does not read the documentation (and who does?) would assume that `git stash --continue` *also* implies `save`.

If that was not enough, there would still be the overall design of Git's user interface. You can call it confusing, inconsistent, with a lot of room for improvement, and you would be correct. But none of Git's commands has a `--continue` option that remembers the latest subcommand and continues that. To introduce that behavior in `git stash` would disimprove the situation.

With every new feature, it is not enough to consider its benefits. You always have to take the potential fallout into account, too.

At least `git stash pop --continue` would be consistent with all other `--continue` options in Git that I can think of...

Ciao, Johannes