Re: [RFC PATCH] stash: accept options also when subcommand 'save' is omitted

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 03:01:52PM +0200, Matthieu Moy wrote:
> ...
> I think yours is nicer, especially as we have just added the
> '-p|--patch' option, as well. With what is there now, you can do "git
> stash -p", but not "git stash -p -k".
>
>> But I may have missed its drawbacks ;-)
>
> The only I can think of is that bogus input will provoke 'save'. So
> something like:
>
>   git stash --apply
>
> will invoke "git stash save --apply", which doesn't even complain. It
> just tries to make a stash with message --apply. Now of course this
> input is obviously bogus, but probably the right thing to do is
> complain.
>
> OTOH, I think it is the fault of "git stash save --apply" for not doing
> the complaining, so your patch really isn't making it worse. Probably it
> should barf on anything unrecognized starting with a '-', and allow '--'
> to separate the message from the rest of the options (in the rare case
> that you want a message starting with '-').

Sounds like a sane approach.

I am Ok with the idea of queuing a patch to update js/stash-dwim ea41cfc
(Make 'git stash -k' a short form for 'git stash save --keep-index',
2009-07-27) with an implementation along this line; the "stash -p" one
f300fab (DWIM 'git stash save -p' for 'git stash -p', 2009-08-13) also
may need to adjusted (it could become no-op, I suspect).