From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [BUG] git stash refuses to save after "add -N" Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 01:05:54 -0400 Message-ID: <20090831050554.GA17197@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <54e098c45bffbf870bdfcee26b9ddecc.squirrel@intranet.linagora.com> <20090828190531.GB11488@coredump.intra.peff.net> <7vmy5ixn96.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20090830095509.GB30922@coredump.intra.peff.net> <7v63c5f4vs.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20090831042724.GA16646@coredump.intra.peff.net> <7vljl0lgms.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Yann Dirson , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Aug 31 07:06:06 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Mhz5h-00025e-5O for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Mon, 31 Aug 2009 07:06:05 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754304AbZHaFFz (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Aug 2009 01:05:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754278AbZHaFFz (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Aug 2009 01:05:55 -0400 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:41488 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754269AbZHaFFz (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Aug 2009 01:05:55 -0400 Received: (qmail 20903 invoked by uid 107); 31 Aug 2009 05:06:08 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) SMTP; Mon, 31 Aug 2009 01:06:08 -0400 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 31 Aug 2009 01:05:54 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vljl0lgms.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 10:03:07PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > - "-f" is kind of vague. Would people expect it to force aspects of > > the stash? Should it be "--intent-as-empty"? > > I am not sure if asking for positive confirmation with "-f" is even worth > it. As you pointed out in your earlier message, which prompted me to > respond with a patch, when this codepath is exercised, the user is in a > rush, and I do not see what else the user would want to do other than > including it in the stash by rerunning with -f. I guess it was just to mitigate my fear that we are somehow creating a stash that will confuse people when they apply it. But really that fear is probably unjustified. -Peff