Re: Behaviour of 'git stash show' when a stash has untracked files

On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 10:23:36AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

I sketched out a possible solution in:

  https://public-inbox.org/git/20170317141417.g2oenl67k74nlqrq@sigill.intra.peff.net/

though I share your concerns over whether people would be annoyed to see
the existing "stash show" output changed.

Forgot about that one.  I sometimes do "stash show -p | apply", so
changing what is included without any option would be annoying, and
not having an option to restore the original behaviour would be
doubly irritating.

I think it would mostly Just Work for your case. git-apply should ignore
the subject cruft at the top of the patch. And if you didn't create a
stash with "-u" or with bits in the index, then those would be absent
from the diff.

And if you _did_ create such a stash, I actually suspect that "apply"
barfing on the resulting patch may be a better outcome than silently
ignoring the changes.

I dunno. I do not use either of those features ("-u" or stashing the
index state) myself. But I have always been bothered how the saved state
is a bit hidden from the user. It seems like a recipe for user confusion
when they save something with "git stash" but then "stash show" doesn't
even mention it.

Perhaps "stash show [--[untracked|index|worktree]]" to show only
one, without the "==> I am this variant <==" label, would be
workable, and with no option we would do --worktree that is the
traditional output.

In addition "stash show --all" could be the output in your earlier
patch.  I like the way it uses the '.' pathspec to squelch the
entire thing when there is no change ;-)

Those all seem like sane interface proposals. As I said above, I have a
vague feeling that the default _ought_ to tell about everything. But I
don't care all that much myself, and I agree that we should avoid
creating headaches for existing users (it's just not clear to me how big
the headaches would be).

I guess the nuclear option there is introducing "git stash info" or
something, and marking "git stash show" as an alias for "git stash info
--worktree". It is too bad, though, as "show" is really the perfect
name.

Anyway. I don't have plans to work on this anytime soon, but I'd be
happy to review if anybody picked up the topic.

-Peff