On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 12:08:52PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > 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? For all the same reasons that "git diff >P.diff" is not as good as a regular stash. > 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 would expect it to stash only the changes in the selected files, restoring them to their state in HEAD, and leave other files untouched. We already have partial stashing like this via "git stash -p". This is just a shorthand for "say yes to all of the changes in foo.c, and no to everything else". So I don't see it as particularly new or dangerous. -Peff -- 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