Re: [RFC] New command: 'git snapshot'.

[Fabio Augusto Dal Castel <fdcastel@gmail.com>]

> Doesn't that argue for "git stash --no-reset" or similar instead of a
> separate command?

Yes. And also for an "--untracked" (as already suggested).

Since stashes does not expire anymore (as correctly pointed by
Brandon), a snapshot could be reduced to an alias for:

git stash --no-reset --untracked

(except for the branch storage)


However, the rationale behind a new command was also to avoid the
'loss of identity' of stash (as currently implemented). I always saw
stash as a way to allow a temporary hack or a pull. If we start adding
a lot of switches into stash that ultimately would change its main
purpose, should it yet be called 'stash'? (something like a 'git
commit --no-commit' ?)

(Please, don't get me wrong: I'm just raising food for thoughts, here)

Maybe the 'stash' command and multiples switches would be more
appropriate if 'reset' was NOT the default behavior. Something like:

git stash [--untracked] [--reset]

where the current 'git stash' would be 'git stash --reset'.Of course,
this would be a significant breaking change.

I know... I know...  "Heresy!" You'd say... <g>

But... what about it? Why, after all, stash MUST do a reset?

"Do one thing. Do it well"?

Regards!
Fabio.