Re: git stash filename - stashing single files.
On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 02:53:20PM +0100, Jonas Hartmann wrote:
Show 5 quoted lines
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3040833/stash-only-one-file-out-of-multiple-files-that-have-changed-with-git#comment32451416_3040833
>
> Could it be possible to have "git stash [filename][filename]...", to
> stash only single files?
> There seems to be a broad community desire.
I think this would be useful. You can pick and choose with "git stash -p", but I have still often wanted "git stash -p [filename]".
There is one problem, though: any non-option arguments to "git stash save" are interpreted as the stash message. So just:
git stash save file
would break backwards compatibility. Annoyingly, so would:
git stash save -- file
which uses the "--" to let you have a message which starts with a dash.
Personally, I think this is a pretty terrible interface. Besides the fact that I have never written a stash message in all my years of using git, it's totally inconsistent with the rest of git (which would use "-m" for the message, and treat arguments as pathspecs).
So it might be worth changing, but we'd probably have to deal with the backwards compatibility fallout, have a deprecation period, etc.
As for "git stash" without "save", there is magic to rewrite:
git stash [opts]
into
git stash save [opts]
but it explicitly does not allow non-option arguments. So:
git stash foo
is an error (and not unreasonably, since "git stash list" creates an ambiguity problem). Perhaps:
git stash -- foo
could be allowed to treat "foo" as a filename. There wouldn't be any backwards compatibility problems, though it would be weird and inconsistent to be able to specify filenames via the "shortcut" invocation, but not with "git stash save".
-Peff
