Re: [PATCH v2] stash: expose untracked modes in create

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

重田一聖 <kazumasa.shigeta@kanamei.com> writes:

> I realized that I had been treating two decisions as one:
> whether to introduce option parsing in `stash create`, and how much
> of what `do_create_stash()` already supports to expose now.
>
> I think adding option parsing and `-m/--message` now would be useful,
> even if we only expose a few options. That is because we should not
> need to revisit the basic parsing and message compatibility question
> just to add another script-oriented option later.
>
> That makes me think we don't need to expose everything
> `do_create_stash()` already supports in this patch. I now think
> we don't need to settle the public rules for other options and
> their interactions until there is a concrete need.
>
> In particular, I would prioritize leaving out options for which
> I haven't found a concrete request and whose interaction rules
> might make future additions harder if fixed now.

Stepping back a bit, I think the long-term goal should be to extend
the 'create' and 'store' pair sufficiently to allow script writers
to write their own 'git stash push' on top of them if they wanted
to.  'git stash create' does not have to be fully capable of doing
so with the current topic alone, but do you agree that improving
'create' in such a way should be our long-term goal?

With that future vision in mind, I am not sure I follow what you
said above.  Shouldn't 'stash create --foo' work the same way as
'stash push --foo' while creating the stash entry, if '--foo' is
not an option relevant only to 'stash store'?  Under what
circumstances does a '--foo' option that 'push' has (and for which
you have not seen a request) have to behave differently when added
to 'create', leaving a stash entry of a different shape from the
one 'push --foo' would create?

If the wish is "we want to start small because thinking about
each and every one of them and making sure they work correctly
is too much work for my liking", I would understand.  But I
do not understand how "we worry we may overspecify without
knowing the need" would apply to this particular case, even
though it is a good thing to keep in mind in other situations.

Thanks.