From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fhigh-a5-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh-a5-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.156]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A8A7C18DB24 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2025 22:11:14 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.156 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1748988676; cv=none; b=fFB7mCy8MT4kmpwUAbXjgBTZMZdq3wSy8VikuuQU19PdHtfMSTdoL/Me3tzpOkeL5Wyjh0F4hLlHVUPHhoG/nkpO+bXToM8mu+qo3LdTIg8w2j0x8pGiffb8Kz5GZgvF5HfPA9ge2WXopRSu9aus0f4SM+hTe15sTp63XHtBfLI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1748988676; c=relaxed/simple; bh=FVwmTCUjiwr6Xln5QkhIoBGnwfDtUBfU6gJMafpsQ7U=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=cNlqQ79uk5BanjvXq0+KpPuuP5UymwyqRl6dfFhBErowgdvf6R5irvmfuQy485GziROTYitisobPC6N4TioHE43oMKyzUTT/AdDJiOQzYlYrOSxL5LzyIazYGCpahkgJUecPtiKOlaq0Hqf/U4cjuBjN8Tnar9olTAC92GokVZw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=TkZFsJl7; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=O10sUtWn; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.156 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="TkZFsJl7"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="O10sUtWn" Received: from phl-compute-11.internal (phl-compute-11.phl.internal [10.202.2.51]) by mailfhigh.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADF9211400E0; Tue, 3 Jun 2025 18:11:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-frontend-01 ([10.202.2.160]) by phl-compute-11.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 03 Jun 2025 18:11:13 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=cc :cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm3; t=1748988673; x=1749075073; bh=GONcnYsvnf a1y75a0oEc6LP9ALXuKw6s4giYVrUW1ZM=; b=TkZFsJl7envgAommWwRFTJ+QYZ jAAXlBUz45fP2Q6WrBmvRrYQS46YuGbP8GcL2LkfhJ8CgES2mPNbXZjkrr3eQtEw e62zYKRCYX9qNm76wWeM+E1TcbohSgKuVCC2DxfkgIl/98s9UKNw7XEHc4Z0f8aC ILC3JvM+rEjleTgOy93pwWlm3U76JokdRiXPjEbXojQLdWwvlfNk6QyMnOT7vvnV A84f+kT588mwHf+DwJiKPOd1rEWHrjReK478VHvPbZz0/NtJzemEcBcBXH0IpQNc tda+G2aZrxWVcbWd6xGTiXRmAaWf5iezrZjnukfD50B1xhoLiP0HhZDVRvnA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; t= 1748988673; x=1749075073; bh=GONcnYsvnfa1y75a0oEc6LP9ALXuKw6s4gi YVrUW1ZM=; b=O10sUtWnyKBBi0JdKAb+2iFicTVHfkgCx4M3cKA16AJ4WcmBKcu q3Y4d3+LxxDk/Gj8/26xa7gI2vVdrXgwh9jRMiLTPXZ2aDTwQ8be9hvQsWNTrUI3 SoOqWR5WwceUbuId39ZL/eQXrSxorsH7sMLUaeUNkQMWsWhWrXmZAVtE5WLf78+J zGeTjNiSQquuZ1xnOtvKhM1MFGBobI2ZiwnNcqBxzoGRRCBIx13YN3YP+IxYlPhL z8Ev0NpSOyiUbbmZYrwNXl+sApMve7DU0801I/iYW4IYorA4O4O6CUUScoa7dm+S 4JWSNlTgAEk1l0fGzsZW43kCmKXpbooTw9A== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeffedrtddugdduudelucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdggtfgfnhhsuhgsshgtrhhisggvpdfu rfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnh htshculddquddttddmnecujfgurhephffvvefujghffffkfgggtgesthdtredttdertden ucfhrhhomheplfhunhhiohcuvecujfgrmhgrnhhouceoghhithhsthgvrhesphhosghogi drtghomheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepffeiteeujeevfeehuddvjeduffeijeegfefh tddvkeefjeejhedtgeefgfeijedtnecuffhomhgrihhnpehgihhthhhusgdrtghomhenuc evlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehgihhtshht vghrsehpohgsohigrdgtohhmpdhnsggprhgtphhtthhopeefpdhmohguvgepshhmthhpoh huthdprhgtphhtthhopehphhhilhhlihhprdifohhougduvdefsehgmhgrihhlrdgtohhm pdhrtghpthhtohepghhithesvhhgvghrrdhkvghrnhgvlhdrohhrghdprhgtphhtthhope hgihhtshhtvghrsehpohgsohigrdgtohhm X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: if26b431b:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 3 Jun 2025 18:11:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Phillip Wood Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] stash: fix and improve "git stash -p " In-Reply-To: (Phillip Wood's message of "Tue, 20 May 2025 10:26:58 +0100") References: <6292feee7c4347efad31e9fb2a1763779b7df133.1747407473.git.phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk> Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2025 15:11:11 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Phillip Wood writes: > From: Phillip Wood > > "git stash -p " should imply "git stash push -p " > but that was broken by a code cleanup in c3713cede7 (stash: eliminate > crude option parsing, 2020-02-17). This regression is fixed in the > first patch. Although "-p" implies the "push" subcommand "--patch" > has never implied "push". That is fixed in the second patch. > > Thanks to Junio for his comments on V1. > > Changes since V1: > - Split out the regression fix into its own patch > > Base-Commit: 1a8a4971cc6c179c4dd711f4a7f5d7178f4b3ab7 > Published-As: https://github.com/phillipwood/git/releases/tag/pw%2Fstash-assume-push-with-dash-p%2Fv2 > View-Changes-At: https://github.com/phillipwood/git/compare/1a8a4971c...98ad3de97 > Fetch-It-Via: git fetch https://github.com/phillipwood/git pw/stash-assume-push-with-dash-p/v2 > > > Phillip Wood (2): > stash: allow "git stash -p " to assume push again > stash: allow "git stash [] --patch " to assume push Are other people interested in this work? I haven't seen any comments other than a few nitpicky one form mine, and want to (1) gauge the interest in the fix, and (2) see how well reviewed it is (and my review or reading over the patches again would not count all that much here). Thanks.