On 02/13, Matthieu Moy wrote:
> Thomas Gummerer <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > Introduce a new git stash push verb in addition to git stash save. The
> > push verb is used to transition from the current command line arguments
> > to a more conventional way, in which the message is given as an argument
> > to the -m option.
>
> Sorry if this has been discussed before, but I find 'push' rather
> confusing here. It took me a while to understand that it meant "opposite
> of pop", because in the context of Git, "push" usually means "send to
> remote repository".
There wasn't much of a discussion about it, but it was pretty much the
only thing that came to my mind, and nobody complained or suggested
anything different, so I just went with it. No other verb came to my
mind yet, but if someone has a better suggestion, I'd be happy to
change.
> Unfortunately, I didn't come up with a better name. "create" is already
> taken ...
>
> Another think to have in mind: changing the option name to break
> backward compatibility is something we can't do often, so if there's
> anything else we should change about the UI, we should do it now. I
> don't have anything particular in mind, just thinking aloud.
Now that you mention this, there actually is one inconsistency that I
introduced, which I shouldn't have. git stash push works with
--include-untracked and --all to decide whether or not to include
untracked files, and if also ignored files should be included. I also
added a --include-untracked {untracked,all} argument to git stash
create, which is clearly inconsistent.
There really should only be one way. I'd be fine with either way, but
I think using --include-untracked and --all is the better choice,
because it's easy to understand, and also makes it easier to switch
git stash without a verb over to use push_stash internally.
> --
> Matthieu Moy
> http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/
