Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > I think that would be OK compromise, though. I'd rather not introduce a > whole new "stashfiles" command (or even a new subcommand of stash) if we > can avoid it. Why wouldn't a simple "git diff -- paths >P.diff" work? What does such a partial stash leave in the working tree, how does the user deal with the remaining local changes, what happens after such a partial stash is applied/popped? I wouldn't have worried about such a change before e0e2a9c (stash: drop dirty worktree check on apply, 2011-04-05) but now we allow application of stashed changes to the dirty working tree (which is a very good thing), I am not sure how sensibly these changes in different places would interact if we start supporting partial stashing. -- 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