Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > Perhaps it makes sense to have an interactive stash rather than an > interactive revert? Then the reverts that you make are still being saved > somewhere, and you can recover from an error by applying the stash. Not > to mention that interactive stash is useful in its own right. > > The downside is that if you are the sort of person who keeps a clean > stash list (and I am not such a person), then you have this > "to-be-deleted" cruft on the top of your stash (whereas with a true > revert, it just goes away). Yeah, such a stash entry would be more like "trash can". It is not "to-be-deleted" but "have been deleted, but you _could_ resurrect". It may not be a bad idea to do it that way, or perhaps "git checkout -p" can automatically create such a trash can while undoing the local changes in the work tree. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html