> Yes, my use case is that I get confused about whether the stash has been dropped or not and whether I might have stashed something else in the meantime. So for me plain 'git stash drop' feels a bit dangerous. Jeff King <peff <at> peff.net> writes: >I also wondered if the "dropped" message is >sufficiently clear to new users. The point of it, I think, is to allow a >final "oops, I didn't mean to do that" moment. But there are no >instructions for how one would re-create the same stash. Right - myself I didn't even realize that recreating the stash was possible (though I was vaguely aware that old stashes float around somewhere until they are garbage collected many months later). git stash is a relatively infrequent operation and quite exotic, so it wouldn't hurt to add lots of chatter to it. >>Another feature I would like to see is a kind of atomic stash apply, >I think that may be a bit harder, as the merge machinery would have to >know how to be atomic. If git merge-recursive had a --dry-run flag that might take care of it. -- Ed Avis <eda@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- 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