On 10/12, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > >> git stash push is the newer interface for creating a stash. While we > >> are still keeping git stash save around for the time being, it's better > >> to point new users of git stash to the more modern (and more feature > >> rich) interface, instead of teaching them the older version that we > >> might want to phase out in the future. > > > > With devil's advocate hat on, because the primary point of "stash" > > being "clear the desk quickly", I do not necessarily agree that > > "more feature rich" is a plus and something we should nudge newbies > > towards. > > I do not particulary view "feature richness" is the primary benefit > of 'push' that makes it shine. 'save' has a quirk in the command > line option syntax, but 'push' corrects it, and that is why we want > to move users towards the latter. I agree it's not the primary benefit (hence why it's in braces :)), but I at least some users will eventually want the features 'git stash push' has to offer, and it's better if they don't have to re-train their fingers at that point. But yeah, fixing the quirky command line interface is definitely the stronger reason for deprecating it. > IOW, I do not object to the agenda; it is just I found the > justification used to push the agenda forward was flawed. I'm happy as long as we agree on the agenda here. Any opinions about the patches themselves? Would you prefer me to resend with an updated description? > Thanks.
