Re: [RFC] stash: support filename argument

[Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@gmail.com>]

On 01/15, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > While working on a repository, it's often helpful to stash the changes
> > of a single or multiple files, and leave others alone.  Unfortunately
> > git currently offers no such option.  git stash -p can be used to work
> > around this, but it's often impractical when there are a lot of changes
> > over multiple files.
> >
> > Add a --file option to git stash save, which allows for stashing a
> > single file.  Specifying the --file argument multiple times allows
> > stashing more than one file at a time.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >
> > Marked as RFC and without documentation updates to first get a feeling
> > for the user interface, and whether people are interested in this
> > change.
> >
> > Ideally I wanted the the user interface to look like something like:
> > git stash save -- [<filename1,...>], but unfortunately that's already
> > taken up by the stash message.  So to preserve backward compatibility
> > I used the new --file argument.
> 
> I haven't spent enough time to think if it even makes sense to
> "stash" partially, leaving the working tree still dirty.  My initial
> reaction was "then stashing away the dirty WIP state to get a spiffy
> clean working environment becomes impossible", and I still need time
> to recover from that ;-)  So as to the desirablity of this "feature",
> I have no strong opinion for or against yet.

As others mentioned, this would be similar to stash -p.  My main
usecase is stashing away a config file or changes in one test file
while I forget to test something without these changes.  I definitely
used git stash -p on more than one occasion to simulate this behaviour
before.

> But if we were to do this, then we should bite the bullet and
> declare that "stash save <message>" was a mistake.  It should have
> been "stash save -m <message>" and we should transition to that (one
> easy way out would be to find another verb that is not 'save').
>
> Then we can do "git stash save [-m <msg>] [--] [pathspec...]" which
> follows the usual command line convention.

I like this interface much better than the one in my patch.  I'm not
sure about the verb we could use for the transition, maybe 'push'.  If
anyone can come up with a different suggestion I'd be happy to hear
it, as I'm not very good at naming things.

-- 
Thomas