Oswald Buddenhagen <oswald.buddenhagen@xxxxxx> writes: > i may be totally wrong about it (because i don't understand the > motivation behind this feature, either), but i think the _intent_ of > nadav's patch is to merely expose the first half of "stash push" (the > other half is the implicit "reset --hard"). it may not be a > sufficiently good one, but there is clearly an analogy here. I do agree that it would be reasonable to want to expose the first half (the other half is "now the local mod got saved in a stash, adjust the working tree and/or the index"), but then that means the code should cover the various operating modes we have, and let the users perform their first half, so that the second half (which by the way needs to be exposed by another series later) can be used on top of the result to emulate as if the combined two (i.e. "stash save/push") have been run, for the feature to be complete, no? Lack of the second half can be excused away with "let's do these one step at a time", but the analogy fails to hold with an incomplete coverage of even the first half, I am afraid. But as you said, I think the lack of concrete "here is how this feature is expected to be used and why it is useful because it allows us to do X that we haven't been able to before" is the largest first issue in the posted patch, as that leaves reviewers guessing without feeling they "understand the motivation behind" the feature. Such an understanding would help us to tell where to stop (maybe in certain modes doing only the "first half" does not make sense because the corresponding "second half" inherently does not exist for some reason, in which case it is fine not to support such a mode that is supported by "stash push").
