Re: git-stash: RFC: Adopt the default behavior to other commands

[Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>]

Hi,

[please do not cull me from the Cc list, should you reply to this]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007, J?rg Sommer wrote:

> Junio C Hamano schrieb am Mon 17. Dec, 16:31 (-0800):
> > Benoit Sigoure <tsuna@lrde.epita.fr> writes:
> > 
> > >> Benoit Sigoure <tsuna@lrde.epita.fr> writes:
> > >>
> > >>> ...  The current behavior of git stash is very
> > >>> dangerous ...
> > > ...
> > >> This is a plain FUD, isn't it?  The first Oops should not happen 
> > >> these days.
> > 
> > But the original point by Sebastian hasn't been answered.  He wanted 
> > to make the command list the stash without arguments.
> > 
> > This was discussed already in the early days of stash and there indeed 
> > was a suggestion to do so (I think I sided with that), but the users 
> > did not want it.  IIRC, the argument went like: "when I say 'stash', 
> > that is because I want a quick and immediate way to stash, and I do 
> > not want a list.  If I do not have to have a quick way, I would create 
> > a temporary commit on the current branch, or switch to a temporary 
> > branch and commit there."
> 
> When it should go quick why don't use an alias. git stash can print the 
> list and everyone who wants a quick stash can create an alias for this.
> 
> I vote for stash print the list, because I dropped in the pitfall.

And in a fresh clone, this list is empty, showing nothing at all.  Leading 
the other half of the users to believe that the stash succeeded.

If stashing as the default operation of stash is ill-advised, showing the 
list is even more so.

Ciao,
Dscho