Re: [RFC] stash: support filename argument

From: Marc Strapetz <marc.strapetz@syntevo.com>
Date: Jan 16, 2017, 08:18 UTC
Message-ID: <c8c5b5e1-b1f1-5b02-dc5f-0ec65f1a11a0@syntevo.com>
In-Reply-To: <c0d46a97-b1c0-d9c9-e475-28e0368ac61f@gmx.net>

On 16.01.2017 01:41, Stephan Beyer wrote:

Show 14 quoted lines

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

I can confirm this from a GUI client perspective, for which this feature makes probably even more sense than for command line. It has been requested by our users quite often compared to other features and compared to "git stash -p" support.

-Marc