On Fri, 18 May 2018, Martin Ågren wrote: > On 18 May 2018 at 11:37, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > toward the bottom of "man git-stash", one reads part of an example: > > > > # ... hack hack hack ... > > $ git add --patch foo # add just first part to the index > > $ git stash push --keep-index # save all other changes to the stash > > ^^^^^ ??? > > > > i thought that, even if "--keep-index" left staged changes in the > > index, it still included those staged changes in the stash. that's > > not the impression one gets from the above. > > So would the error be in the part of the man-page quoted below? > > If the --keep-index option is used, all changes already added to > the index are left intact. no, that part is correct, it clearly(?) states that staged changes are left where they are, in the index. i submit that the misleading part is in the example i quoted, which suggests that only the "other" changes are saved to the stash -- that is, the changes other than what is already in the index. > That is, this doesn't say *where* things are left intact (in the > index? in the working tree?). in that case, that's something that could obviously be clarified. > The man-page does start with > > git-stash - Stash the changes in a dirty working directory away > > which to me suggests that "leaving something intact" refers to > precisely this -- the working directory. > > Or is it the name of the option that trips you up? That is, you read > the name as `--keep-the-index-as-is-but-stash-as-usual`, as opposed > to `--keep-what-is-already-in-the-index-around`? > > While I'm sure that some clarification could be provided, I'm tempted to > argue that is exactly what the example provides that you quoted from. i guess we can agree to disagree, since i think the snippet of the example i provided gives a misleading explanation. rday
