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):
quoted
Benoit Sigoure [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
quoted
Benoit Sigoure [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
... The current behavior of git stash is very
dangerous ...
...
quoted
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