From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nanako Shiraishi Subject: Re: [PATCH] stash: --keep option just saves Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 17:17:32 +0900 Message-ID: <20090212171732.6117@nanako3.lavabit.com> References: <20090212062514.6117@nanako3.lavabit.com> <7vljscbp60.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Feb 12 09:19:44 2009 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 1LXWnM-0007FD-K3 for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 12 Feb 2009 09:19:41 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750879AbZBLISE (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Feb 2009 03:18:04 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750748AbZBLISC (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Feb 2009 03:18:02 -0500 Received: from karen.lavabit.com ([72.249.41.33]:55432 "EHLO karen.lavabit.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750711AbZBLISA (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Feb 2009 03:18:00 -0500 Received: from c.earth.lavabit.com (c.earth.lavabit.com [192.168.111.12]) by karen.lavabit.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F067611BAA1; Thu, 12 Feb 2009 02:17:59 -0600 (CST) Received: from 1625.lavabit.com (212.62.97.20) by lavabit.com with ESMTP id J0VP8IRGFU6I; Thu, 12 Feb 2009 02:17:59 -0600 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=lavabit; d=lavabit.com; b=hzyj1JIW4DAfrRlbBD+JKEs2nk32eZo37A3Qk+slFSKgLp26awd3Aty+bVTOl3uMTqKP3pnwPX6nZpZX5zq7GlDcpVgEVzovXYk6xFAzX6sHNxK+1De+yrS2qJ7TTRBHxjdHR2rXdLPHCIUpnnvrgJTeIMZVENJ93uZJDBqP2pg=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id; In-Reply-To: <7vljscbp60.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Quoting Junio C Hamano writes: > But I somewhat doubt if this line of change is a good idea to begin with. > > All talks about using stash --no-rest and snapshot share this problem. By > not making regular commits, you are denying yourself the rich set of tools > git offers you to use on regular commits and the ancestry chains between > them, and nobody explained what the benefits of not using normal commits > on normal branches are, nor how the inconveniences from this aversion to > branches forces you are justified by those unexplained benefits. I'm sorry. I didn't think about such a negative aspect of adding the feature. I can imagine that, after using many 'stash save --keep', I'll naturally want to manipulate changes between kept stashes, like running 'git log' to view the difference between each step and cherry-picking a change between ones next to each other etc. Because a list of stashes doesn't support such operations, additional support for them is needed to make it useful, but I agree with you that such additions are not real features that are necessary, because git already supports these operations if I used commits on a normal branch instead. Use of 'stash save --keep' is making it necessary to implement duplicated features for no good reason. It may also confuse users by unnecessarily adding another way to do the same thing. So I think you're right to point out that this is not a good thing to add. > This topic won't go beyond 'next' during this round because it started way > after -rc0 was tagged. It is not urgent to decide what will happen to the > recent "snapshot" related topics, and we have plenty of time to toss ideas > around, but currently I have to say that I am not very enthused about any > of the causes mentioned in various discussion threads. You already applied my patch on pu branch. It's OK by me if you dropped it. Thank you for your comments. -- Nanako Shiraishi http://ivory.ap.teacup.com/nanako3/