Re: [RFC] stash: support filename argument

From: Stephan Beyer <s-beyer@gmx.net>
Date: Jan 16, 2017, 00:41 UTC
Message-ID: <c0d46a97-b1c0-d9c9-e475-28e0368ac61f@gmx.net>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqvatfc0rt.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>

Hi,

On 01/16/2017 01:21 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 6 quoted lines

> I haven't spent enough time to think if it even makes sense to
> "stash" partially, leaving the working tree still dirty.  My initial
> reaction was "then stashing away the dirty WIP state to get a spiffy
> clean working environment becomes impossible", and I still need time
> to recover from that ;-)  So as to the desirablity of this "feature",
> I have no strong opinion for or against yet.

I do remember that I simulated that feature a few times (either by adding the to-be-keep stuff (hunks, not only files) to the index and use --keep-index, and sometimes by making a temporary commit (to make sure to not lose anything) and then stash). So I think there is a valid desire of the feature.

However, going further, the next feature to be requested could be "git stash --patch" ;D This leads me to think that the mentioned simulation of partial stashes might be something everyone might come up with who has basic understanding of git features and "git stash", and might be the more flexible and probably better solution to the problem.

Best
  Stephan