git-stash: RFC: Adopt the default behavior to other commands

> Hi,
>
> By default, git-stash (when called without any other arguments)  
> creates a new
> stash. This is quite different to the behavior of most other Git  
> commands
> (e.g. git-tag, git-branch, etc. do "list" by default). In order to  
> improve
> consistency git-stash should imho adopt this as well.
>
> The creation of a new stash should not do any harm. However, I  
> think that
> consistency is more important (iirc this has been mentioned in the  
> current
> survey a couple of times) and doing "list" is (in general) the best  
> default.

> ...  The current behavior of git stash is very
> dangerous as the following frequently happens to new comers:
>   $ git stash
>   $ <hack on something else>
>   $ git commit
>   $ git stash apply
>   $ git stash clean # Oops, typo, I just stashed my changes again
>   $ git stash clear # Oops, I just lost my changed

> Benoit Sigoure <tsuna@lrde.epita.fr> writes:
>
>> ...  The current behavior of git stash is very
>> dangerous as the following frequently happens to new comers:
>>   $ git stash
>>   $ <hack on something else>
>>   $ git commit
>>   $ git stash apply
>>   $ git stash clean # Oops, typo, I just stashed my changes again
>>   $ git stash clear # Oops, I just lost my changed
>
> This is a plain FUD, isn't it?  The first Oops should not happen these
> days.

> On Dec 18, 2007, at 12:00 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> Benoit Sigoure <tsuna@lrde.epita.fr> writes:
>>
>>> ...  The current behavior of git stash is very
>>> dangerous ...
> ...
>> This is a plain FUD, isn't it?  The first Oops should not happen these
>> days.
>
> *git pull in git*
> *reads Documentation/RelNotes-1.5.4.txt*
>
> Blah.  I didn't know follow the development over the past 3 weeks well
> enough, sorry for the noise.  I'm glad that this was improved.

> But the original point by Sebastian hasn't been answered.  He wanted to
> make the command list the stash without arguments.
> 
> This was discussed already in the early days of stash and there indeed
> was a suggestion to do so (I think I sided with that), but the users did
> not want it.  IIRC, the argument went like: "when I say 'stash', that is
> because I want a quick and immediate way to stash, and I do not want a
> list.  If I do not have to have a quick way, I would create a temporary
> commit on the current branch, or switch to a temporary branch and commit
> there."

> On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 04:31:12PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > But the original point by Sebastian hasn't been answered.  He wanted 
> > to make the command list the stash without arguments.
> > 
> > This was discussed already in the early days of stash and there indeed 
> > was a suggestion to do so (I think I sided with that), but the users 
> > did not want it.  IIRC, the argument went like: "when I say 'stash', 
> > that is because I want a quick and immediate way to stash, and I do 
> > not want a list.  If I do not have to have a quick way, I would create 
> > a temporary commit on the current branch, or switch to a temporary 
> > branch and commit there."
> 
> Well, "git stash save" is just five characters more - I really don't see 
> why this would be less comfortable (and for the really lazy people there 
> are still aliases...). On the other hand (if "list" is the default), 
> we'd get a more consistent interface which imho is imho more important 
> than typing five characters less.

> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2007, Sebastian Harl wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 04:31:12PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>> But the original point by Sebastian hasn't been answered.  He wanted 
>>> to make the command list the stash without arguments.
>>>
>>> This was discussed already in the early days of stash and there indeed 
>>> was a suggestion to do so (I think I sided with that), but the users 
>>> did not want it.  IIRC, the argument went like: "when I say 'stash', 
>>> that is because I want a quick and immediate way to stash, and I do 
>>> not want a list.  If I do not have to have a quick way, I would create 
>>> a temporary commit on the current branch, or switch to a temporary 
>>> branch and commit there."
>> Well, "git stash save" is just five characters more - I really don't see 
>> why this would be less comfortable (and for the really lazy people there 
>> are still aliases...). On the other hand (if "list" is the default), 
>> we'd get a more consistent interface which imho is imho more important 
>> than typing five characters less.
> 
> It's more about what you're used to.  I had an alias named 'stash' long 
> before it became a git command.  And now guess how _annoying_ it would be 
> to type "git stash<Return><Curse out loud at my mouse>git stash 
> save<Return>".
> 

> Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 18 Dec 2007, Sebastian Harl wrote:
> > 
> > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 04:31:12PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > > > But the original point by Sebastian hasn't been answered.  He 
> > > > wanted to make the command list the stash without arguments.
> > > > 
> > > > This was discussed already in the early days of stash and there 
> > > > indeed was a suggestion to do so (I think I sided with that), but 
> > > > the users did not want it.  IIRC, the argument went like: "when I 
> > > > say 'stash', that is because I want a quick and immediate way to 
> > > > stash, and I do not want a list.  If I do not have to have a quick 
> > > > way, I would create a temporary commit on the current branch, or 
> > > > switch to a temporary branch and commit there."
> > > Well, "git stash save" is just five characters more - I really don't 
> > > see why this would be less comfortable (and for the really lazy 
> > > people there are still aliases...). On the other hand (if "list" is 
> > > the default), we'd get a more consistent interface which imho is 
> > > imho more important than typing five characters less.
> > 
> > It's more about what you're used to.  I had an alias named 'stash' 
> > long before it became a git command.  And now guess how _annoying_ it 
> > would be to type "git stash<Return><Curse out loud at my mouse>git 
> > stash save<Return>".
> 
> Not nearly as annoying as losing work because of it, and you obviously 
> *know* what to do when you're done cursing, while clueless-newbie-X just 
> hops away and uses subversion.

> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2007, Andreas Ericsson wrote:
> 
>> Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 18 Dec 2007, Sebastian Harl wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 04:31:12PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>>>> But the original point by Sebastian hasn't been answered.  He 
>>>>> wanted to make the command list the stash without arguments.
>>>>>
>>>>> This was discussed already in the early days of stash and there 
>>>>> indeed was a suggestion to do so (I think I sided with that), but 
>>>>> the users did not want it.  IIRC, the argument went like: "when I 
>>>>> say 'stash', that is because I want a quick and immediate way to 
>>>>> stash, and I do not want a list.  If I do not have to have a quick 
>>>>> way, I would create a temporary commit on the current branch, or 
>>>>> switch to a temporary branch and commit there."
>>>> Well, "git stash save" is just five characters more - I really don't 
>>>> see why this would be less comfortable (and for the really lazy 
>>>> people there are still aliases...). On the other hand (if "list" is 
>>>> the default), we'd get a more consistent interface which imho is 
>>>> imho more important than typing five characters less.
>>> It's more about what you're used to.  I had an alias named 'stash' 
>>> long before it became a git command.  And now guess how _annoying_ it 
>>> would be to type "git stash<Return><Curse out loud at my mouse>git 
>>> stash save<Return>".
>> Not nearly as annoying as losing work because of it, and you obviously 
>> *know* what to do when you're done cursing, while clueless-newbie-X just 
>> hops away and uses subversion.
> 
> Really?  Clueless-newbie-X certainly knows how to apply the stash, 
> otherwise she would not have used the command, right?
> 

> Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>
> > In the alternative, you could just scrap all those default actions, 
> > showing synopses instead.  For all commands, including "git commit", 
> > "git log", "git fetch", etc.
> 
> Like we do for the git wrapper, you mean? Yes, that would be one 
> solution, although not a very good one for all commands.

> It's probably not a bad idea for commands where the primary use is 
> something else than producing visual output though, such as tag or 
> branch, but those handle creation/deletion of stuff, so the default 
> action for them is to list stuff of the kind they operate on. I fail to 
> see why stash should be any different.

> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2007, Andreas Ericsson wrote:
> 
>> Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>>
>>> In the alternative, you could just scrap all those default actions, 
>>> showing synopses instead.  For all commands, including "git commit", 
>>> "git log", "git fetch", etc.
>> Like we do for the git wrapper, you mean? Yes, that would be one 
>> solution, although not a very good one for all commands.
> 
> Exactly.  Not a good one.
> 
>> It's probably not a bad idea for commands where the primary use is 
>> something else than producing visual output though, such as tag or 
>> branch, but those handle creation/deletion of stuff, so the default 
>> action for them is to list stuff of the kind they operate on. I fail to 
>> see why stash should be any different.
> 
> I also fail to see why stash should be any different.  And that's why I 
> expect it to have a default operation, which is -- you guessed it -- 
> "stash the changes!"
> 

> If I am not sure what I am about to do, there is -- wonder of wonders -- 
> the "-h" option!  And indeed:
> 
> 	$ git stash -h
> 	Usage: /home/gitte/bin/git-stash [  | save | list | show | apply | 
> 		clear | create ]
> 
> So what exactly was your point again?
> 

> Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Dec 2007, Andreas Ericsson wrote:
>>> Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>>>
>>>> In the alternative, you could just scrap all those default
>>>> actions, showing synopses instead.  For all commands, including
>>>> "git commit", "git log", "git fetch", etc.
>>>
>>> Like we do for the git wrapper, you mean? Yes, that would be one
>>> solution, although not a very good one for all commands.
>>
>> Exactly.  Not a good one.
>>
>>> It's probably not a bad idea for commands where the primary use is
>>> something else than producing visual output though, such as tag or
>>> branch, but those handle creation/deletion of stuff, so the default
>>> action for them is to list stuff of the kind they operate on. I
>>> fail to see why stash should be any different.
>>
>> I also fail to see why stash should be any different.  And that's why
>> I expect it to have a default operation, which is -- you guessed it -- 
>> "stash the changes!"
> 
> Actually, I guessed "list the stashes".
> 
>> If I am not sure what I am about to do, there is -- wonder of wonders -- 
>> the "-h" option!  And indeed:
>> 	$ git stash -h
>> 	Usage: /home/gitte/bin/git-stash [  | save | list | show |
>> apply | 		clear | create ]
>> So what exactly was your point again?
>>
> 
> My point is that it would be nice if all git commands that actually
> manipulate objects (create/delete/modify) had a safe default, and
> that experienced users such as yourself could endure the insufferable
> agony of retraining your fingers to type five more chars so that
> people won't have to get bitten by surprises.

> Andreas Ericsson <ae@op5.se> writes:
>> Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>>> On Tue, 18 Dec 2007, Andreas Ericsson wrote:
>>>> Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In the alternative, you could just scrap all those default
>>>>> actions, showing synopses instead.  For all commands, including
>>>>> "git commit", "git log", "git fetch", etc.
>>>> Like we do for the git wrapper, you mean? Yes, that would be one
>>>> solution, although not a very good one for all commands.
>>> Exactly.  Not a good one.
>>>
>>>> It's probably not a bad idea for commands where the primary use is
>>>> something else than producing visual output though, such as tag or
>>>> branch, but those handle creation/deletion of stuff, so the default
>>>> action for them is to list stuff of the kind they operate on. I
>>>> fail to see why stash should be any different.
>>> I also fail to see why stash should be any different.  And that's why
>>> I expect it to have a default operation, which is -- you guessed it -- 
>>> "stash the changes!"
>> Actually, I guessed "list the stashes".
>>
>>> If I am not sure what I am about to do, there is -- wonder of wonders -- 
>>> the "-h" option!  And indeed:
>>> 	$ git stash -h
>>> 	Usage: /home/gitte/bin/git-stash [  | save | list | show |
>>> apply | 		clear | create ]
>>> So what exactly was your point again?
>>>
>> My point is that it would be nice if all git commands that actually
>> manipulate objects (create/delete/modify) had a safe default, and
>> that experienced users such as yourself could endure the insufferable
>> agony of retraining your fingers to type five more chars so that
>> people won't have to get bitten by surprises.
> 
> Also for "git commit"?
> 

> In my opinion _basic_ usage of git-stash is simply using it with
> one stash only: "git stash" / "git unstash" (i.e. "git stash apply";
> by the way this is one (beside "git view") use case for builtin
> predefined aliases).  Using it with multiple stashes (only then
> "git stash list" is needed) is advanced usage; and for advanced
> usage longer form is preferred, I think.
> 

> Jakub Narebski wrote:
>
> > Andreas Ericsson <ae@op5.se> writes:
> >
> > > My point is that it would be nice if all git commands that actually 
> > > manipulate objects (create/delete/modify) had a safe default, and 
> > > that experienced users such as yourself could endure the 
> > > insufferable agony of retraining your fingers to type five more 
> > > chars so that people won't have to get bitten by surprises.
> > 
> > Also for "git commit"?
> 
> git commit has a very safe default; It runs "git status" and exits.

> > In my opinion _basic_ usage of git-stash is simply using it with one 
> > stash only: "git stash" / "git unstash" (i.e. "git stash apply"; by 
> > the way this is one (beside "git view") use case for builtin 
> > predefined aliases).  Using it with multiple stashes (only then "git 
> > stash list" is needed) is advanced usage; and for advanced usage 
> > longer form is preferred, I think.
> > 
> 
> Perhaps. I'll stop quibbling about it. I don't care very deeply about it 
> anyway.

> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2007, Andreas Ericsson wrote:
>
>> Jakub Narebski wrote:
>>
>> > Andreas Ericsson <ae@op5.se> writes:
>> >
>> > > My point is that it would be nice if all git commands that actually 
>> > > manipulate objects (create/delete/modify) had a safe default, and 
>> > > that experienced users such as yourself could endure the 
>> > > insufferable agony of retraining your fingers to type five more 
>> > > chars so that people won't have to get bitten by surprises.
>> > 
>> > Also for "git commit"?
>> 
>> git commit has a very safe default; It runs "git status" and exits.
>
> Not in my universe.  It starts an editor, and then commits what I
> staged.

> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
>
> > On Tue, 18 Dec 2007, Andreas Ericsson wrote:
> >
> >> Jakub Narebski wrote:
> >>
> >> > Andreas Ericsson <ae@op5.se> writes:
> >> >
> >> > > My point is that it would be nice if all git commands that 
> >> > > actually manipulate objects (create/delete/modify) had a safe 
> >> > > default, and that experienced users such as yourself could endure 
> >> > > the insufferable agony of retraining your fingers to type five 
> >> > > more chars so that people won't have to get bitten by surprises.
> >> > 
> >> > Also for "git commit"?
> >> 
> >> git commit has a very safe default; It runs "git status" and exits.
> >
> > Not in my universe.  It starts an editor, and then commits what I 
> > staged.
> 
> ... allowing you to abort the operation by means of providing empty 
> commit message. On the other hand, "git stash" has immediate effect, so 
> it's somewhat more dangerous. Just to be picky, anyway.

> Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>> Hi,
>> On Tue, 18 Dec 2007, Sebastian Harl wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 04:31:12PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>>> But the original point by Sebastian hasn't been answered.  He  
>>>> wanted to make the command list the stash without arguments.
>>>>
>>>> This was discussed already in the early days of stash and there  
>>>> indeed was a suggestion to do so (I think I sided with that), but  
>>>> the users did not want it.  IIRC, the argument went like: "when I  
>>>> say 'stash', that is because I want a quick and immediate way to  
>>>> stash, and I do not want a list.  If I do not have to have a  
>>>> quick way, I would create a temporary commit on the current  
>>>> branch, or switch to a temporary branch and commit there."
>>> Well, "git stash save" is just five characters more - I really  
>>> don't see why this would be less comfortable (and for the really  
>>> lazy people there are still aliases...). On the other hand (if  
>>> "list" is the default), we'd get a more consistent interface which  
>>> imho is imho more important than typing five characters less.
>> It's more about what you're used to.  I had an alias named 'stash'  
>> long before it became a git command.  And now guess how _annoying_  
>> it would be to type "git stash<Return><Curse out loud at my  
>> mouse>git stash save<Return>".
>
> Not nearly as annoying as losing work because of it, and you obviously
> *know* what to do when you're done cursing, while clueless-newbie-X  
> just
> hops away and uses subversion.

> Benoit Sigoure <tsuna@lrde.epita.fr> writes:
> 
> >> Benoit Sigoure <tsuna@lrde.epita.fr> writes:
> >>
> >>> ...  The current behavior of git stash is very
> >>> dangerous ...
> > ...
> >> This is a plain FUD, isn't it?  The first Oops should not happen these
> >> days.
> 
> But the original point by Sebastian hasn't been answered.  He wanted to
> make the command list the stash without arguments.
> 
> This was discussed already in the early days of stash and there indeed
> was a suggestion to do so (I think I sided with that), but the users did
> not want it.  IIRC, the argument went like: "when I say 'stash', that is
> because I want a quick and immediate way to stash, and I do not want a
> list.  If I do not have to have a quick way, I would create a temporary
> commit on the current branch, or switch to a temporary branch and commit
> there."

> Junio C Hamano schrieb am Mon 17. Dec, 16:31 (-0800):
> > Benoit Sigoure <tsuna@lrde.epita.fr> writes:
> > 
> > >> Benoit Sigoure <tsuna@lrde.epita.fr> writes:
> > >>
> > >>> ...  The current behavior of git stash is very
> > >>> dangerous ...
> > > ...
> > >> This is a plain FUD, isn't it?  The first Oops should not happen 
> > >> these days.
> > 
> > But the original point by Sebastian hasn't been answered.  He wanted 
> > to make the command list the stash without arguments.
> > 
> > This was discussed already in the early days of stash and there indeed 
> > was a suggestion to do so (I think I sided with that), but the users 
> > did not want it.  IIRC, the argument went like: "when I say 'stash', 
> > that is because I want a quick and immediate way to stash, and I do 
> > not want a list.  If I do not have to have a quick way, I would create 
> > a temporary commit on the current branch, or switch to a temporary 
> > branch and commit there."
> 
> When it should go quick why don't use an alias. git stash can print the 
> list and everyone who wants a quick stash can create an alias for this.
> 
> I vote for stash print the list, because I dropped in the pitfall.

> Jörg Sommer <joerg@alea.gnuu.de> writes:
>
>> When it should go quick why don't use an alias. git stash can print the
>> list and everyone who wants a quick stash can create an alias for this.
>
> You are taking this completely backwards.  The stash mechanism is all
> about creating a quickie temporary pair of commits.  Anybody who wants
> otherwise can use alias or choose not to use stash at all.

> +allow_quick_stash () {
> +	
> +	quick=$(git config stash.quick)
> +	if test $? != 0
> +	then

> +		echo '
> +*** First time users ***
> ...
> +		git config stash.quick $quick
> +		echo '
> +You can reconfigure this by editing your $HOME/.gitconfig file'
> +
> +	fi

> +	case "$quick" in
> +	true)	return 0 ;;
> +	false)	return 1 ;;
> +	ask)	: do not return ;;
> +	esac
> +	
> +	if ! test -t 0 || ! test -t 1
> +	then
> +		return 0
> +	fi

> @@ -226,11 +289,16 @@ create)
>  	create_stash "$*" && echo "$w_commit"
>  	;;
>  *)
> -	if test $# -eq 0
> +	if test $# -ne 0
> +	then
> +		usage
> +	fi
> +	if allow_quick_stash
>  	then
>  		save_stash && git-reset --hard
>  	else
> -		usage
> +		echo "*** Stash List ***"
> +		list_stash
>  	fi

> しらいしななこ  <nanako3@bluebottle.com> writes:
>
>> How about making this behavior configurable?
>
> First, as a general principle, I'd like to avoid having commands that
> changes their behaviour drastically depending on who the user is.  It
> makes it harder for people experienced a bit more than totally new to
> help others.  If they are truly experts and are familiar about the
> configuration stash.quick, then they will be fine, but others would  
> say
> "Well, it works for me -- 'git stash' itself won't stash but list.   
> Why
> isn't it working for you, I don't know" and scratch head.

> しらいしななこ  <nanako3@bluebottle.com> writes:
>
>> How about making this behavior configurable?
>
> First, as a general principle, I'd like to avoid having commands that
> changes their behaviour drastically depending on who the user is.  It
> makes it harder for people experienced a bit more than totally new to
> help others.  If they are truly experts and are familiar about the
> configuration stash.quick, then they will be fine, but others would say
> "Well, it works for me -- 'git stash' itself won't stash but list.  Why
> isn't it working for you, I don't know" and scratch head.

> Hi,
>
> Junio C Hamano schrieb am Mon 17. Dec, 16:31 (-0800):
> > Benoit Sigoure <tsuna@lrde.epita.fr> writes:
> >
> > >> Benoit Sigoure <tsuna@lrde.epita.fr> writes:
> > >>
> > >>> ...  The current behavior of git stash is very
> > >>> dangerous ...
> > > ...
> > >> This is a plain FUD, isn't it?  The first Oops should not happen these
> > >> days.
> >
> > But the original point by Sebastian hasn't been answered.  He wanted to
> > make the command list the stash without arguments.
> >
> > This was discussed already in the early days of stash and there indeed
> > was a suggestion to do so (I think I sided with that), but the users did
> > not want it.  IIRC, the argument went like: "when I say 'stash', that is
> > because I want a quick and immediate way to stash, and I do not want a
> > list.  If I do not have to have a quick way, I would create a temporary
> > commit on the current branch, or switch to a temporary branch and commit
> > there."
>
> When it should go quick why don't use an alias. git stash can print the
> list and everyone who wants a quick stash can create an alias for this.
>
> I vote for stash print the list, because I dropped in the pitfall.
>

> On Dec 19, 2007 4:42 AM, Jörg Sommer <joerg@alea.gnuu.de> wrote:
>> I vote for stash print the list, because I dropped in the pitfall.
>
> I've dropped there myself, and work with a large team where we are
> both fans of stash, and scarred by it. Any newcomer to git that
> "discovers" stash gets hit by it a dozen times, this is completely
> unnecesary.

> El 19/12/2007, a las 0:41, Martin Langhoff escribió:
>
> > On Dec 19, 2007 4:42 AM, Jörg Sommer <joerg@alea.gnuu.de> wrote:
> >> I vote for stash print the list, because I dropped in the pitfall.
> >
> > I've dropped there myself, and work with a large team where we are
> > both fans of stash, and scarred by it. Any newcomer to git that
> > "discovers" stash gets hit by it a dozen times, this is completely
> > unnecesary.
>
> I may be missing something here, but what's the danger here? An

> On Dec 19, 2007 8:33 PM, Wincent Colaiuta <win@wincent.com> wrote:
>> El 19/12/2007, a las 0:41, Martin Langhoff escribió:
>>
>>> On Dec 19, 2007 4:42 AM, Jörg Sommer <joerg@alea.gnuu.de> wrote:
>>>> I vote for stash print the list, because I dropped in the pitfall.
>>> I've dropped there myself, and work with a large team where we are
>>> both fans of stash, and scarred by it. Any newcomer to git that
>>> "discovers" stash gets hit by it a dozen times, this is completely
>>> unnecesary.
>> I may be missing something here, but what's the danger here? An
> 
> Surprise. Your working directory has *just* changed under your feet.
> Maybe you have an editor with further unsaved changes that is about to
> act confused whether you undo the stash or not.
> 
>> unexpected stash is incredibly easy to revert, unless I'm missing
> 
> Once you know about it, yes it is. Once you know about the reflog, you
> can sing and dance and never be worried. But for starting users, it's
> a dangerous command.
> 
>> And nobody commented on the idea I posted earlier which
>> seems to address the concerns about newbies not knowing what "git
>> stash" with no params does:
> 
> I agree with making stash more verbose -- if the unlucky new user is
> paying close attention, they'll have instructions on to how to get out
> of trouble. But I agree more with making it "just verbose, no action"
> by default. There are two strong hints:
> 
>  - all other state-changing commands take parameters
>  - quite a few people in this list have gotten burned with it
> 
> Even after knowing pretty well how stash works, I still get mixed up
> sometimes with the 'clear/clean/list' stuff. Or have a typo in the
> command.
> 

> On Dec 19, 2007 8:33 PM, Wincent Colaiuta <win@wincent.com> wrote:
> > El 19/12/2007, a las 0:41, Martin Langhoff escribi?:
> >
> > > On Dec 19, 2007 4:42 AM, J?rg Sommer <joerg@alea.gnuu.de> wrote:
> > >> I vote for stash print the list, because I dropped in the pitfall.
> > >
> > > I've dropped there myself, and work with a large team where we are 
> > > both fans of stash, and scarred by it. Any newcomer to git that 
> > > "discovers" stash gets hit by it a dozen times, this is completely 
> > > unnecesary.
> >
> > I may be missing something here, but what's the danger here? An
> 
> Surprise. Your working directory has *just* changed under your feet. 
> Maybe you have an editor with further unsaved changes that is about to 
> act confused whether you undo the stash or not.

> > unexpected stash is incredibly easy to revert, unless I'm missing
> 
> Once you know about it, yes it is. Once you know about the reflog, you
> can sing and dance and never be worried. But for starting users, it's
> a dangerous command.

> > And nobody commented on the idea I posted earlier which seems to 
> > address the concerns about newbies not knowing what "git stash" with 
> > no params does:
> 
> I agree with making stash more verbose -- if the unlucky new user is
> paying close attention, they'll have instructions on to how to get out
> of trouble. But I agree more with making it "just verbose, no action"
> by default. There are two strong hints:
> 
>  - all other state-changing commands take parameters

> But stash really is about things like
>
> 	$ git stash
> 	$ git pull
> 	$ git stash apply
>
> I do not _want_ to see the stash list in _most_ cases, because I do  
> not
> stash away million dirty changes.
>
> And that workflow was what "git stash" was designed for.