David Kastrup wrote: > Brandon Casey <casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Anders Melchiorsen wrote: >> >>> When trying to recover from that scenario, I do "git stash apply" as >>> recommended by the "git stash" output. Now I still lost my index >>> state, all changes are unstaged. >> See the documentation, apply has a '--index' option. > > Still, the shoot-yourself-in-the-foot potential is quite larger than > appropriate for what is mostly workflow porcelaine. It is even larger > than appropriate for plumbing IMHO. I think it is excessive to call the action taken by 'git stash', when it is unwanted, "shoot[ing]-yourself-in-the-foot". More like stub-your-toe. In exchange for allowing new users to stub their toe on new commands, the work flow of more experienced users is made a little easier. > I mean, even misspellings like > git stash lisp > > cause action that is not easily reversible, and the given help output is > misleading with regard to index state. $ git stash lisp Usage: git stash list [<options>] or: git stash (show | drop | pop ) [<stash>] or: git stash apply [--index] [<stash>] or: git stash branch <branchname> [<stash>] or: git stash [save [--keep-index] [<message>]] or: git stash clear Maybe you are referring to the long since changed behavior where 'git stash' == 'git stash save' and so "lisp" in your example would have been taken as a stash description. This behavior existed for less than 6 months, and has been changed now for over 10 months. -brandon -- 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
