On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 10:15:37AM +0100, Phillip Wood wrote: > Hi Torsten > > Sorry for the slow reply No problem. Thanks for the response, I think that we have an agreement not to overwrite an untracked file, when a directory with the same name needs to be created. I try to come up with a patch series - starting with the stash operation. > > On 09/08/2023 19:47, Torsten Bögershausen wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 02:15:28PM +0100, Phillip Wood wrote: > > > Hi Torsten > > > > > > Thanks for working on this. I've cc'd Junio for his unpack_trees() > > > knowledge. > > > > Thanks Eric for the review. > > > > Hej Phillip, > > I have been playing around with the whole thing some time. > > At the end I had a version, which did fiddle the information > > that we are doing a `git stash` (and not any other operation) > > into entry.c, and all test cases passed. > > So in principle I can dig out all changes, polish them > > and send them out, after doing cleanups of course. > > I don't think we should be treating "git stash" as a special case here - > commands like "git checkout" should not be removing untracked files > unprompted either. > > > (And that could take a couple of days, or weeks ;-) > > > > My main question is still open: > > Is it a good idea, to create a "helper file" ? > > The naming can be discussed, we may stick the date/time > > into the filename to make it really unique, or so. > > I think stopping and telling the user that the file would be overwritten as > we do in other cases would be better. > > > Reading the different reports and including own experience, > > I still think that a directory called ".deleted-by-user" > > or ".wastebin" or something in that style is a good idea. > > I can see an argument for being able to opt-in to that for "git restore" and > "git reset --hard" but that is a different problem to the one here. > > Best Wishes > > Phillip >
