On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 10:23:36AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > > I sketched out a possible solution in: > > > > https://public-inbox.org/git/20170317141417.g2oenl67k74nlqrq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > though I share your concerns over whether people would be annoyed to see > > the existing "stash show" output changed. > > Forgot about that one. I sometimes do "stash show -p | apply", so > changing what is included without any option would be annoying, and > not having an option to restore the original behaviour would be > doubly irritating. I think it would mostly Just Work for your case. git-apply should ignore the subject cruft at the top of the patch. And if you didn't create a stash with "-u" or with bits in the index, then those would be absent from the diff. And if you _did_ create such a stash, I actually suspect that "apply" barfing on the resulting patch may be a better outcome than silently ignoring the changes. I dunno. I do not use either of those features ("-u" or stashing the index state) myself. But I have always been bothered how the saved state is a bit hidden from the user. It seems like a recipe for user confusion when they save something with "git stash" but then "stash show" doesn't even mention it. > Perhaps "stash show [--[untracked|index|worktree]]" to show only > one, without the "==> I am this variant <==" label, would be > workable, and with no option we would do --worktree that is the > traditional output. > > In addition "stash show --all" could be the output in your earlier > patch. I like the way it uses the '.' pathspec to squelch the > entire thing when there is no change ;-) Those all seem like sane interface proposals. As I said above, I have a vague feeling that the default _ought_ to tell about everything. But I don't care all that much myself, and I agree that we should avoid creating headaches for existing users (it's just not clear to me how big the headaches would be). I guess the nuclear option there is introducing "git stash info" or something, and marking "git stash show" as an alias for "git stash info --worktree". It is too bad, though, as "show" is really the perfect name. Anyway. I don't have plans to work on this anytime soon, but I'd be happy to review if anybody picked up the topic. -Peff
