> Doesn't that argue for "git stash --no-reset" or similar instead of a > separate command? Yes. And also for an "--untracked" (as already suggested). Since stashes does not expire anymore (as correctly pointed by Brandon), a snapshot could be reduced to an alias for: git stash --no-reset --untracked (except for the branch storage) However, the rationale behind a new command was also to avoid the 'loss of identity' of stash (as currently implemented). I always saw stash as a way to allow a temporary hack or a pull. If we start adding a lot of switches into stash that ultimately would change its main purpose, should it yet be called 'stash'? (something like a 'git commit --no-commit' ?) (Please, don't get me wrong: I'm just raising food for thoughts, here) Maybe the 'stash' command and multiples switches would be more appropriate if 'reset' was NOT the default behavior. Something like: git stash [--untracked] [--reset] where the current 'git stash' would be 'git stash --reset'.Of course, this would be a significant breaking change. I know... I know... "Heresy!" You'd say... <g> But... what about it? Why, after all, stash MUST do a reset? "Do one thing. Do it well"? Regards! Fabio. -- 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
