Martin von Zweigbergk <martin.von.zweigbergk@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Maybe the above shows that I'm missing something. Still, would it be > possible to achieve the use case with something like the following? > > git stash --keep-index While I sense a vague aversion to committing in general in this discussion, which I am not particularly fond of, the whole point of "stash" is to avoid the mental burden of going over the "hump" of committing something not ready and to replace it with a "save it as a temporary state" that technically has the same overhead of committing but has a lot less mental overhead. Perhaps "swapping the state of all and/or selected paths" fits better in "stash", not "update-index"? I dunno, but in general, a new feature to cater to _common_ end user needs should fit in the Porcelain layer. We would be doing something wrong if we need to teach an obscure option of lower plumbing to end users. I personally used to feel that "ls-files -u" during a conflicted merge to be the single sore-thumb that stuck out from this point of view, but these days "status -s" gives the same information in a more useful way to the end users, and I am reasonably happy with that. It may be that the end user operation (perhaps "stash --swap", but I am not married to that) that fits well in common workflows ends up using "update-index --swap" as an underlying implementation detail, but I'd prefer to see how the final end user experience using Porcelain would look like first. -- 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