Matthieu Moy <matthieu....@grenoble-inp.fr> writes: > Holger Hellmuth <hellm...@ira.uka.de> writes: > >> Am 24.02.2014 17:21, schrieb Matthieu Moy: >>> $ git add foo.txt >>> $ git status >>> On branch master >>> Changes to be committed: >>> (use "git reset HEAD <file>..." to unstage) >>> >>> modified: foo.txt >> >> Maybe status should display a stash count if that count is > 0, as >> this is part of the state of the repo. > > Maybe it would help some users, but not me for example. My main use of > "git stash" is a safe replacement for "git reset --hard": when I want to > discard changes, but keep them safe just in case. > > So, my stash count is almost always >0, and I don't want to hear about > it.
"status" is about reminding the user what changes are already in the index (i.e. what you would commit) and what changes are in the working tree, from which you could further update the index with (i.e. what you could commit). One _could_ argue that stashed changes are what could be reflected to the working tree and form the source of the latter, but my gut feeling is that it is a rather weak argument. At that point you are talking about what you could potentially change in the working tree, and the way to do so is not limited to "stash pop" (i.e. you can "git cherry-pick --no-commit $a_commit", or "edit" any file in the working tree for that matter, with the same ease). So, I tend to agree with you, while I do understand where "I want to know about what is in stash" is coming from (and that is why we do have "git stash list" command). -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
