Hi, On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Martin Langhoff wrote: > On Dec 19, 2007 8:33 PM, Wincent Colaiuta <win@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > El 19/12/2007, a las 0:41, Martin Langhoff escribi?: > > > > > On Dec 19, 2007 4:42 AM, J?rg 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. The funny thing: why do you call stash with unsaved changes anyway? I mean, come on, even if you were planning to see the usage of stash (which you would get with -h), you undoubtedly wanted to either stash or unstash some changes. Otherwise you would not _need_ to see the usage to begin with. > > 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. No. Reflogs have nothing to do with it. If you want to stash changes, you _got_ to know how to unstash those changes. Otherwise "git reset --hard" would have been your friend. And so, I cannot help but believe that all users of stash -- even the new ones -- know about the fundamental concept of stashing/unstashing, and therefore it is more something like this: $ git stash [no usage? What the heck... Oh, it stashed the changes. I did not want to stash them just yet. Okay:] $ git unstash No such command [Oh, maybe I should have read the man page. Oh, well, the usage should do...] $ git stash -h ... Yes, if you start "git stash" blindly, believing that it does what "git stash -h" does, you will be bitten by it once. But as I said, you will be bitten by a plenty commands if you are not familiar with the concept that "-h" shows the synopsis, "--help" the man page, and that there is a default action where possible. But stash really is about things like $ git stash $ git pull $ git stash apply I do not _want_ to see the stash list in _most_ cases, because I do not stash away million dirty changes. And that workflow was what "git stash" was designed for. > > 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 What about "git commit", "git reset", "git fetch"? These definitely change state of the repository. > - quite a few people in this list have gotten burned with it Okay, let's have a little calculation: IIRC 3 people (let's make it 10, to be conservative) have said that they had this problem. I must assume that all other people did not have the problem, or at least saw why the default action of "git stash" is what it is. That said, if you _have_ to have the default changed, then I'll probably implement a "git push" and "git pop" alias here, so that I cannot get annoyed by stash's "new and improved" behaviour. Ciao, Dscho - 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
