Because it is so tempting to expect "git stash clear stash@{4}"
to remove the fourth element in the stash while leaving other
elements intact, we should not blindly throw away everything.
This may change when we start using "git reflog delete" to
selectively nuke a single (or multiple, for that matter) stash
entries when such a command is given.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx>
---
JM Ibanez <jm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> ...
>> There was some discussion of a sensible name, but I don't recall seeing
>> a resolution on this: why not "clear stash@{0}" to clear one, and
>> "clear" to clear all? Otherwise, I foresee "git stash clear stash@{0}"
>> followed by "oops, I just deleted all of my stashes."
>
> I actually got hit by this. I didn't know that stash clear affected all
> stashes and lost quite a bit of work that way (I use stash to store
> various test database configs for a tree I work with, and so lost all of
> them when trying to remove one particular stash).
I think something along this line may be necessary to
futureproof our users.
git-stash.sh | 6 +++++-
1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/git-stash.sh b/git-stash.sh
index 06cb177..80036ef 100755
--- a/git-stash.sh
+++ b/git-stash.sh
@@ -20,6 +20,10 @@ no_changes () {
}
clear_stash () {
+ if test $# != 0
+ then
+ die "git stash clear with parameters unimplemented $@"
+ fi
if current=$(git rev-parse --verify $ref_stash 2>/dev/null)
then
git update-ref -d $ref_stash $current
@@ -216,7 +220,7 @@ apply)
apply_stash "$@"
;;
clear)
- clear_stash
+ clear_stash "$@"
;;
create)
if test $# -gt 0 && test "$1" = create
-
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
