Re: [PATCH 0/3] stash: support filename argument

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Jan 24, 2017, 10:56 UTC
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1701241148300.3469@virtualbox>
In-Reply-To: <20170121200804.19009-1-t.gummerer@gmail.com>

Hi Thomas,

On Sat, 21 Jan 2017, Thomas Gummerer wrote:

> This is the first try to implement the RFC I posted a week ago [1].  It
> introduces a new push verb for git stash.  I couldn't come up with
> any better name that wasn't already taken.  If anyone has ideas I'd be
> very happy to hear them.

I would have preferred a series of patches that essentially adds a new and improved `save` syntax:

git stash [save] [-p|--patch] [-k|--[no-]keep-index] [-q|--quiet]
          [-u|--include-untracked] [-a|--all] [-m <message>]]
          [-- <path>...]

and keeps the legacy syntax, but deprecates it:

git stash [save [-p|--patch] [-k|--[no-]keep-index] [-q|--quiet]
          [-u|--include-untracked] [-a|--all] [<message>]]

The problem with that is, of course, that 3c2eb80fe3 (stash: simplify defaulting to "save" and reject unknown options, 2009-08-18) in its infinite wisdom *already* introduced the `--` separator to drop out of option parsing.

On a positive note, it is a thorn in Git's CUI that `git stash` implies the `save` command, and that `save` is not at all the opposite of `apply` or `pop`. Your introduction of the `push` command will fix that flaw, and we can *still* deprecate the `save` command.

Ciao, Johannes