Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> More importantly... >> >> Whenever I think about a new "feature", I try to come up with a >> story in which the feature effectively improves the end-user's life, >> how it fits in the larger picture, and enables something that is >> hard to do by combining other tools. >> >> The kind of "story" I would aim for is like this. Suppose we were >> selling not "git stash -S" but "git stash -k". ... > [...] > So in short, I do not think I am strongly opposed to "git stash -S" > existing, since I did find one use case story that it could be used, > but I do think it is redundant and unnecessary. Redundant? Yes. Unnecessary? Yes. Useful? Yes. ;-) I took the steps to propose the new feature after yet another round of "how do I quickly store this tiny bit of changes I just figured I need for later, out of bunch of VIWIP changes?" git stash --staged is exactly the (currently missing) answer for me, as I have pretty interactive tool to stage diff chunks always handy. What's your answer, I wonder? That said, I'm also curious what story, if any, do you have for 'git stash --patch', as exactly the same story should be applicable to proposed 'git stash --staged', as far as I can see. Thanks, -- Sergey Organov
