Re: [PATCH] Add 'preserve' subcommand to 'git stash'

[Oswald Buddenhagen <oswald.buddenhagen@gmx.de>]

On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 09:42:41AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>"Nadav Goldstein via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:
>> In this patch, we introduce a new subcommand preserve to
>> git stash. The purpose of this subcommand is to save the
>> current changes into the stash and then immediately re-apply
>> those changes to the working directory.
>
>Why a new subcommand, not a new option to "push"?  Adding a new
>subcommand would mean it would be another unfamiliar thing users
>need to learn, as opposed to a slight variation of what they are
>already familiar with.
>
to be fair, there's also `apply` and not `pop --keep`.

of course, `preserve` seems a bit unspecific, but `save` and `create` 
are already taken.

>>     If the community will approve, I will modify the patch to include 
>>     help
>>     messages for the new subcommand
>
>Please don't think this way.  If the new feature is not worth
>completing to document and tests for your own use, it is not worth
>community's time to review or "approve" it.
>
for one's own use, one usually wouldn't do the polishing.

>Instead, we try to send a patch that is already perfected, with tests 
>and docs,
>
it's nice when "we" do that, but i think that this is a somewhat too 
one-sided committment to *ask* for.

>in order to improve the chance reviewers will understand the new 
>feature and its motivation better when they review the patch.
>
i think one can achieve that without doing the full monty.
that's what the design-driven process is for, after all. the crux is at 
what contribution size one considers it "worth it", but you can be sure 
that drive-by contributors have a significantly lower threshold than 
regulars.

i'm not saying that nadav succeeded, but a focus on final artifacts 
alone is unlikely to have changed anything.

regards,
ossi