On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 05:29:58AM +0000, Benoit Sigoure wrote: > On Nov 6, 2007, at 5:16 AM, Aghiles wrote: > > >Hello, > > > >>who will run git stash clear? :) > > > >Yes you are right. By the way, in the context of merging into a > >dirty tree, "git stash clear" seems to be a dangerous command: > >there is a risk of loosing all your changes without a question > >asked! > > > >I know unix is a harsh world but ... > > Be *very* careful, because it's worse than that. If you run, say, `git > stash clean', instead of `clear' (that's the sort of typo that quickly > slips through), then it will stash all your changes in a new stash named > "clean". Once you realize you made a typo, you will most probably > correct it and run `git stash clear' but... Oops, you just wiped your > changes that were in the "clean" stash. > That happened to me and other people I know, so now I'm utterly cautious > when I start a command with "git stash". > > As far as I remember, a patch was proposed to change this mis-behavior of > "git stash" (one could argue that it's a PEBCAK issue, but I really think > this command is *way* too dangerous) but I don't think it's been accepted > at this time. no it's a command issue. git stash <random non command name> should _NOT_ be an alias to git stash save <random name>. Either the command should be mandatory _or_ it should be a long option to avoid such kind of conflicts. It's just a bad ui design. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O madcoder@xxxxxxxxxx OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgpXvK1FsA2kZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
