Re: `git stash pop` UX Problem

Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] writes:

"status" is about reminding the user what changes are already in the
index (i.e. what you would commit) and what changes are in the
working tree, from which you could further update the index with
(i.e. what you could commit).

I believe "status" should tell me everything git knows about the current
workspace in a resonably concise way. That includes the stash.

One _could_ argue that stashed changes are what could be reflected
to the working tree and form the source of the latter, but my gut
feeling is that it is a rather weak argument.  At that point you are
talking about what you could potentially change in the working tree,

No, I saved things in the stash on purpose. For example, I had changes
that were not ready to commit, but I wanted to do a merge from upstream.

There are workflows where the stash is not important; provide an option
to 'git status' that means "ignore stash". 

So, I tend to agree with you, while I do understand where "I want to
know about what is in stash" is coming from (and that is why we do
have "git stash list" command).

My Emacs front end currently checks both 'git status' and 'git stash
list' to build "the status of the current workspace".

-- 
-- Stephe