From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Kastrup Subject: Re: making "git stash" safer to use Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 22:59:31 +0200 Message-ID: <85przuoato.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> References: <200709301421.52192.bruno@clisp.org> <200710021350.54625.bruno@clisp.org> <47023699.3080606@byu.net> <200710032331.41385.bruno@clisp.org> <858x6jff2v.fsf@lupus.ig3.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Joachim B Haga X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Oct 04 23:09:34 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IdXwN-0000Hz-TF for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 04 Oct 2007 23:09:04 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760176AbXJDVIy (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Oct 2007 17:08:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759752AbXJDVIy (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Oct 2007 17:08:54 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]:45261 "EHLO fencepost.gnu.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759469AbXJDVIx (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Oct 2007 17:08:53 -0400 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lola.goethe.zz) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IdXvL-0007aa-1m; Thu, 04 Oct 2007 17:07:59 -0400 Received: by lola.goethe.zz (Postfix, from userid 1002) id BB8461C46504; Thu, 4 Oct 2007 22:59:31 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <858x6jff2v.fsf@lupus.ig3.net> (Joachim B. Haga's message of "Thu\, 04 Oct 2007 10\:40\:08 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1.50 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Joachim B Haga writes: > What makes it most dangerous is that there is no differentiation > between a name and a command in the same position. I'd argue that > either the command should be mandatory: > > git stash save mywork > git stash apply mywork > git stash clear mywork > git stash mywork # error > > (we can still keep today's shortcuts "git stash" and "git stash apply", > but only for the un-named case), > > or that the command should be of the option type: > > git stash mywork > git stash --apply mywork > git stash --clear mywork Hear, hear! I vote for the latter. The former is still better than the current state, though. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum