[PATCH] git-stash: Display help message if git-stash is run without sub-commands

[PATCH] git-stash: Display help message if git-stash is run without sub-commands

[Kevin Leung]

The current git-stash behaviour is very error prone to typos. For example,
if you typed "git-stash llist", git-stash would thought that you wanted to
save to a stash named "llist", but in fact, you meant "git-stash list".

Signed-off-by: Kevin Leung <kevinlsk@gmail.com>
---
 git-stash.sh |   15 ++++++---------
 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/git-stash.sh b/git-stash.sh
index 77c9421..dbb8894 100755
--- a/git-stash.sh
+++ b/git-stash.sh
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 #!/bin/sh
 # Copyright (c) 2007, Nanako Shiraishi

-USAGE='[ | list | show | apply | clear]'
+USAGE='[ save | list | show | apply | clear ]'

 SUBDIRECTORY_OK=Yes
 . git-sh-setup
@@ -195,6 +195,10 @@ show)
        shift
        show_stash "$@"
        ;;
+save)
+       shift
+       save_stash "$@" && git-reset --hard
+       ;;
 apply)
        shift
        apply_stash "$@"
@@ -202,14 +206,7 @@ apply)
 clear)
        clear_stash
        ;;
-help | usage)
-       usage
-       ;;
 *)
-       if test $# -gt 0 && test "$1" = save
-       then
-               shift
-       fi
-       save_stash "$*" && git-reset --hard
+       usage
        ;;
 esac
-- 
1.5.3.6.36.g38762

Re: [PATCH] git-stash: Display help message if git-stash is run without sub-commands

[Mike Hommey]

On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 04:16:34PM +0800, Kevin Leung <kevinlsk@gmail.com> wrote:
> The current git-stash behaviour is very error prone to typos. For example,
> if you typed "git-stash llist", git-stash would thought that you wanted to
> save to a stash named "llist", but in fact, you meant "git-stash list".

Still, 'git stash' alone should *do* the stash.

Mike

Re: [PATCH] git-stash: Display help message if git-stash is run without sub-commands

[Kevin Leung]

On Nov 30, 2007 4:41 PM, Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org> wrote:
> Still, 'git stash' alone should *do* the stash.
>

How about `git stash' still does the stash, and `git stash llist'
exits with usage message? And if you want to save the stash with name,
you can only do it with `git stash save name_of_stash'.

Kevin Leung

Re: [PATCH] git-stash: Display help message if git-stash is run without sub-commands

[Wincent Colaiuta]

El 30/11/2007, a las 10:09, Kevin Leung escribió:

> On Nov 30, 2007 4:41 PM, Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org> wrote:
>> Still, 'git stash' alone should *do* the stash.
>
> How about `git stash' still does the stash, and `git stash llist'
> exits with usage message? And if you want to save the stash with name,
> you can only do it with `git stash save name_of_stash'.

That's probably the way it should have been all along.
>


Cheers,
Wincent

Re: [PATCH] git-stash: Display help message if git-stash is run without sub-commands

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi,

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Kevin Leung wrote:

> The current git-stash behaviour is very error prone to typos. For 
> example, if you typed "git-stash llist", git-stash would thought that 
> you wanted to save to a stash named "llist", but in fact, you meant 
> "git-stash list".

I am fine with your patch.  I would be equally fine with "git stash" still 
choosing a default message and stashing.

And yes, I agree that the "git stash <whatever>" might be a little too 
error-prone.

Ciao,
Dscho

Re: [PATCH] git-stash: Display help message if git-stash is run without sub-commands

[Junio C Hamano]

"Kevin Leung" <kevinlsk@gmail.com> writes:

> On Nov 30, 2007 4:41 PM, Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org> wrote:
>> Still, 'git stash' alone should *do* the stash.
>>
>
> How about `git stash' still does the stash, and `git stash llist'
> exits with usage message? And if you want to save the stash with name,
> you can only do it with `git stash save name_of_stash'.

Sounds like a sensible thing to do.

Re: [PATCH] git-stash: Display help message if git-stash is run without sub-commands

[David Kastrup]

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

> "Kevin Leung" <kevinlsk@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Nov 30, 2007 4:41 PM, Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org> wrote:
>>> Still, 'git stash' alone should *do* the stash.
>>>
>>
>> How about `git stash' still does the stash, and `git stash llist'
>> exits with usage message? And if you want to save the stash with name,
>> you can only do it with `git stash save name_of_stash'.
>
> Sounds like a sensible thing to do.

Instead of "save", one could use "stash" since that is what it is
supposed to do.  Then

git stash stash stash

would create a stash called "stash".

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum