On Thu, 19 Oct 2017, Thomas Gummerer wrote:
> On 10/17, Jeff King wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 10:45:15PM +0100, Thomas Gummerer wrote:
> >
> > > > Seems reasonable, though if we are deprecating "save" should we demote
> > > > it from being in the synopsis entirely?
> > >
> > > I saw that as a next step, with the "official" deprecation of "save".
> > > I thought we might want to advertise "push" a bit more before actually
> > > officially deprecating "save" and sending the deprecation notice out
> > > in the release notes.
> >
> > Right, my thinking was that it would still be documented in the manpage,
> > just lower down. And that would probably say something like "save is a
> > historical synonym for push, except that it differs in these ways...".
> >
> > > OTOH, dropping it from the synopsis in the man page probably wouldn't
> > > cause much issue, as "push" directly replaces it, and is easily
> > > visible. Not sure how slow we want to take the deprecation?
> >
> > I don't think there's any reason to go slow in marking something as
> > deprecated. It's the part where we follow up and remove or change the
> > feature that must take a while.
>
> Makes sense, let me drop it from the synopsis then.
what, exactly, is the oft-referred-to issue with how "git stash
save" works that is being addressed with the new syntax of "git stash
push"?
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
http://crashcourse.ca
Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================
