Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > "status" is about reminding the user what changes are already in the > index (i.e. what you would commit) and what changes are in the > working tree, from which you could further update the index with > (i.e. what you could commit). I believe "status" should tell me everything git knows about the current workspace in a resonably concise way. That includes the stash. > One _could_ argue that stashed changes are what could be reflected > to the working tree and form the source of the latter, but my gut > feeling is that it is a rather weak argument. At that point you are > talking about what you could potentially change in the working tree, No, I saved things in the stash on purpose. For example, I had changes that were not ready to commit, but I wanted to do a merge from upstream. There are workflows where the stash is not important; provide an option to 'git status' that means "ignore stash". > So, I tend to agree with you, while I do understand where "I want to > know about what is in stash" is coming from (and that is why we do > have "git stash list" command). My Emacs front end currently checks both 'git status' and 'git stash list' to build "the status of the current workspace". -- -- Stephe -- 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