On Dec 19, 2007 8:33 PM, Wincent Colaiuta <win@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > El 19/12/2007, a las 0:41, Martin Langhoff escribió: > > > On Dec 19, 2007 4:42 AM, Jörg Sommer <joerg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> I vote for stash print the list, because I dropped in the pitfall. > > > > I've dropped there myself, and work with a large team where we are > > both fans of stash, and scarred by it. Any newcomer to git that > > "discovers" stash gets hit by it a dozen times, this is completely > > unnecesary. > > I may be missing something here, but what's the danger here? An Surprise. Your working directory has *just* changed under your feet. Maybe you have an editor with further unsaved changes that is about to act confused whether you undo the stash or not. > unexpected stash is incredibly easy to revert, unless I'm missing Once you know about it, yes it is. Once you know about the reflog, you can sing and dance and never be worried. But for starting users, it's a dangerous command. > And nobody commented on the idea I posted earlier which > seems to address the concerns about newbies not knowing what "git > stash" with no params does: I agree with making stash more verbose -- if the unlucky new user is paying close attention, they'll have instructions on to how to get out of trouble. But I agree more with making it "just verbose, no action" by default. There are two strong hints: - all other state-changing commands take parameters - quite a few people in this list have gotten burned with it Even after knowing pretty well how stash works, I still get mixed up sometimes with the 'clear/clean/list' stuff. Or have a typo in the command. cheers, martin - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
