Re: [PATCH] stash: git stash create and git stash store added to git stash usage synopsys

Scott Schmit [off-list ref] writes:

[administrivia: please refrain from using Mail-follow-up-to]

On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 11:54:06PM +0600, Alexander Kuleshov wrote:

quoted

Signed-off-by: Alexander Kuleshov <redacted>
---
 git-stash.sh | 4 +++-
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/git-stash.sh b/git-stash.sh
index 6846b18..6e30380 100755
--- a/git-stash.sh
+++ b/git-stash.sh

@@ -9,7 +9,9 @@ USAGE="list [<options>]
    or: $dashless branch <branchname> [<stash>]
    or: $dashless [save [--patch] [-k|--[no-]keep-index] [-q|--quiet]
 		       [-u|--include-untracked] [-a|--all] [<message>]]
-   or: $dashless clear"
+   or: $dashless clear
+   or: $dashless create [<message>]
+   or: $dashless store [-m|--message <message>] [-q|--quiet] <commit>"
 
 SUBDIRECTORY_OK=Yes
 OPTIONS_SPEC=

Considering the man page says create & store are intended for scripts
and "probably not the command you want to use", why would we want it in
the synopsis?

With the understanding that these are only for scripters, I think we
can agree that we do want to describe them in the manual pages, and
we do not want them in the completion.

I feel "git stash -h" output is on the borderline, and can be argued
both ways:

 - When you script and are not clear how a command you wanted to use
   in your script is to be used, it wouldn't be a crime to ask the
   short "git stash -h" form (instead of the full manual page "git
   stash --help") to remind how the command line ought to be
   spelled.

 - When you are not interested in script at all, from the command
   line you may want to be reminded how to spell the subcommand with
   "git stash -h" form.  Having "store" listed, which will never be
   what you want in this scenario, will be confusing.  You want to
   see "save".

So, I dunno.