Sergey Organov <sorganov@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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? I am the one who questions the usefulness of "stash --staged" and thinks "add -p", "stash -k", test, "commit" is a much better way to solve the "we have a messy working tree and we want to create a clean multi-step end result out of it" problem. I consider "stash --staged" as a solution in search of a problem, so you'd need to ask somebody else for a problem that "stash --staged" is suitable for. And "I want to stash away this tiny bit" is better solved by *not* doing "git add" it to the index and then stashing. Rather, I'd just do "commit" so that I can "rebase -i" to reorganize these bits later. Of course, to test the "tiny bit" standalone, I may use "stash -k" first, but do not see such a senario shows the merit of using "stash --staged" over other tools. > 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. "stash --patch" is also "Meh" from my point of view. I do not strongly object to its existence, it may be a OK tool for a small scale use, but I suspect it would be more frustrating than helpful to users when applied in a larger workflow story, just like I view "git stash --staged". Thanks.
