On 02/06, Jeff King wrote: > On Sun, Feb 05, 2017 at 08:26:41PM +0000, Thomas Gummerer wrote: > > > git stash create currently supports a positional argument for adding a > > message. This is not quite in line with how git commands usually take > > comments (using a -m flag). > > > > Add a new syntax for adding a message to git stash create using a -m > > flag. This is with the goal of deprecating the old style git stash > > create with positional arguments. > > > > This also adds a -u argument, for untracked files. This is already used > > internally as another positional argument, but can now be used from the > > command line. > > How do we tell the difference between new-style invocations, and > old-style ones that look new-style? IOW, I think: > > git stash create -m works > > currently treats "-m works" as the full message, and it would now become > just "works". > > That may be an acceptable loss for the benefit we are getting. The > alternative is to make yet another verb for create, as we did with > save/push). I have a feeling that hardly anybody uses "create", though, > and it's mostly an implementation detail. So given the obscure nature, > maybe it's an acceptable level of regression. I dunno. Right. So I did a quick search on google and github for this, and there seems one place where git stash create -m is used [1]. From a quick look it does however not seem like the -m in the stash message is of any significance there, but rather that the intention was to use a flag that doesn't exist. I *think* this regression is acceptable, but I'm happy to introduce another verb if people think otherwise. > But either way, it should probably be in the commit message in case > somebody does have to track it down later. I'll add something there, thanks! > -Peff [1]: https://github.com/Andersbakken/nrdp-scripts/blob/1052fc6781c36c4b227c7dd4838a501341b0862a/bin/git-rstash#L81