On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 02:51:27PM +0000, Thomas Gummerer wrote: > > 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. Yeah, I think your patch is actually fixing that case. But your search is only part of the story. You found somebody using "-m" explicitly, but what about somebody blindly calling: git stash create $* That's now surprising to somebody who puts "-m" in their message. > I *think* this regression is acceptable, but I'm happy to introduce > another verb if people think otherwise. Despite what I wrote above, I'm still inclined to say that this isn't an important regression. I'd be surprised if "stash create" is used independently much at all. -Peff