Re: stash --dwim safety

From: Matthieu Moy <matthieu.moy@imag.fr>
Date: Sep 1, 2009, 06:27 UTC
Message-ID: <vpqocpv2n93.fsf@bauges.imag.fr>
In-Reply-To: <7v3a77dx5b.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

Show 6 quoted lines

> It turns out that the rework was simple enough, so I did it myself.  Among
> his 3 patch series, an equivalent to the first one ("save -keep" can be
> written as "save -k" for brevity) were already in, and the second one
> (default to "save" if we see any option before command word) was unsafe
> without the third one (reject unknown option to "save"), so it ended up as
> a single patch that is a combination of the latter two patches.

Thanks, lack of time on my side to work on this, sorry.

I was actually thinking of being a little more paranoid to prevent accidental "stash save": we could refuse to create a named stash when the "save" command is not given. The case I hadn't thought of was "git stash -q apply", which has 99% chances of being a typo for "git stash apply -q", and which would mean "create a stash named apply, quietly".

Show 6 quoted lines

> +# The default command is "save"
> +case "$1" in
> +-*)
> +	set "save" "$@"
> +	;;
> +esac

So, that could become something like

default_to_save=t
for arg in "$@"; do
	case "$arg" in
	-*)
		;;
	*)
		default_to_save=
	esac
done

if [ "$default_to_save" = t ]; then
	set "save" "$@"
fi

(untested)

-- 
Matthieu