Re: [PATCH 2/1] mention git stash push first in the man page
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017, Jeff King wrote: > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 04:04:10AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > > > > I don't think there's any reason to go slow in marking something as > > > > deprecated. It's the part where we follow up and remove or change the > > > > feature that must take a while. > > > > > > Makes sense, let me drop it from the synopsis then. > > > > what, exactly, is the oft-referred-to issue with how "git stash > > save" works that is being addressed with the new syntax of "git stash > > push"? > > "stash save" soaks up all arguments as the stash message, so it's not > possible to specify pathspecs. "push" uses "-m " for the stash > message, and can accept pathspecs. ah, i knew that, yeah, that's the ticket. :-) rday -- Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA http://crashcourse.ca Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
Re: [PATCH 2/1] mention git stash push first in the man page
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 04:04:10AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > > I don't think there's any reason to go slow in marking something as > > > deprecated. It's the part where we follow up and remove or change the > > > feature that must take a while. > > > > Makes sense, let me drop it from the synopsis then. > > what, exactly, is the oft-referred-to issue with how "git stash > save" works that is being addressed with the new syntax of "git stash > push"? "stash save" soaks up all arguments as the stash message, so it's not possible to specify pathspecs. "push" uses "-m " for the stash message, and can accept pathspecs. -Peff
Re: [PATCH 2/1] mention git stash push first in the man page
On Thu, 19 Oct 2017, Thomas Gummerer wrote: > On 10/17, Jeff King wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 10:45:15PM +0100, Thomas Gummerer wrote: > > > > > > Seems reasonable, though if we are deprecating "save" should we demote > > > > it from being in the synopsis entirely? > > > > > > I saw that as a next step, with the "official" deprecation of "save". > > > I thought we might want to advertise "push" a bit more before actually > > > officially deprecating "save" and sending the deprecation notice out > > > in the release notes. > > > > Right, my thinking was that it would still be documented in the manpage, > > just lower down. And that would probably say something like "save is a > > historical synonym for push, except that it differs in these ways...". > > > > > OTOH, dropping it from the synopsis in the man page probably wouldn't > > > cause much issue, as "push" directly replaces it, and is easily > > > visible. Not sure how slow we want to take the deprecation? > > > > I don't think there's any reason to go slow in marking something as > > deprecated. It's the part where we follow up and remove or change the > > feature that must take a while. > > Makes sense, let me drop it from the synopsis then. what, exactly, is the oft-referred-to issue with how "git stash save" works that is being addressed with the new syntax of "git stash push"? rday -- Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA http://crashcourse.ca Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
Re: [PATCH 2/1] mention git stash push first in the man page
On 10/17, Jeff King wrote: > On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 10:45:15PM +0100, Thomas Gummerer wrote: > > > > Seems reasonable, though if we are deprecating "save" should we demote > > > it from being in the synopsis entirely? > > > > I saw that as a next step, with the "official" deprecation of "save". > > I thought we might want to advertise "push" a bit more before actually > > officially deprecating "save" and sending the deprecation notice out > > in the release notes. > > Right, my thinking was that it would still be documented in the manpage, > just lower down. And that would probably say something like "save is a > historical synonym for push, except that it differs in these ways...". > > > OTOH, dropping it from the synopsis in the man page probably wouldn't > > cause much issue, as "push" directly replaces it, and is easily > > visible. Not sure how slow we want to take the deprecation? > > I don't think there's any reason to go slow in marking something as > deprecated. It's the part where we follow up and remove or change the > feature that must take a while. Makes sense, let me drop it from the synopsis then. Thanks! > -Peff
Re: [PATCH 2/1] mention git stash push first in the man page
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 10:45:15PM +0100, Thomas Gummerer wrote: > > Seems reasonable, though if we are deprecating "save" should we demote > > it from being in the synopsis entirely? > > I saw that as a next step, with the "official" deprecation of "save". > I thought we might want to advertise "push" a bit more before actually > officially deprecating "save" and sending the deprecation notice out > in the release notes. Right, my thinking was that it would still be documented in the manpage, just lower down. And that would probably say something like "save is a historical synonym for push, except that it differs in these ways...". > OTOH, dropping it from the synopsis in the man page probably wouldn't > cause much issue, as "push" directly replaces it, and is easily > visible. Not sure how slow we want to take the deprecation? I don't think there's any reason to go slow in marking something as deprecated. It's the part where we follow up and remove or change the feature that must take a while. -Peff
Re: [PATCH 2/1] mention git stash push first in the man page
On 10/17, Jeff King wrote: > On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 09:10:29PM +0100, Thomas Gummerer wrote: > > > Because 'stash push' and 'stash save' are so closely related they share one > > section in the man page. Currently 'stash save' comes first, as that > > was the command that people were historically using. However this makes > > the newer, more feature rich git stash push very easy to overlook. > > Change the order to give the newer interface for creating a stash the > > more prominent position. > > Seems reasonable, though if we are deprecating "save" should we demote > it from being in the synopsis entirely? I saw that as a next step, with the "official" deprecation of "save". I thought we might want to advertise "push" a bit more before actually officially deprecating "save" and sending the deprecation notice out in the release notes. OTOH, dropping it from the synopsis in the man page probably wouldn't cause much issue, as "push" directly replaces it, and is easily visible. Not sure how slow we want to take the deprecation? > -Peff
Re: [PATCH 2/1] mention git stash push first in the man page
On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 09:10:29PM +0100, Thomas Gummerer wrote: > Because 'stash push' and 'stash save' are so closely related they share one > section in the man page. Currently 'stash save' comes first, as that > was the command that people were historically using. However this makes > the newer, more feature rich git stash push very easy to overlook. > Change the order to give the newer interface for creating a stash the > more prominent position. Seems reasonable, though if we are deprecating "save" should we demote it from being in the synopsis entirely? -Peff
[PATCH 2/1] mention git stash push first in the man page
Because 'stash push' and 'stash save' are so closely related they share one
section in the man page. Currently 'stash save' comes first, as that
was the command that people were historically using. However this makes
the newer, more feature rich git stash push very easy to overlook.
Change the order to give the newer interface for creating a stash the
more prominent position.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gummerer
---
Documentation/git-stash.txt | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/git-stash.txt b/Documentation/git-stash.txt
index 53b2e60aeb..a1ddfb8eae 100644
--- a/Documentation/git-stash.txt
+++ b/Documentation/git-stash.txt
@@ -48,8 +48,8 @@ stash index (e.g. the integer `n` is equivalent to
`stash@{n}`).
OPTIONS
---
-save [-p|--patch] [-k|--[no-]keep-index] [-u|--include-untracked] [-a|--all]
[-q|--quiet] []::
push [-p|--patch] [-k|--[no-]keep-index] [-u|--include-untracked] [-a|--all]
[-q|--quiet] [-m|--message ] [--] [...]::
+save [-p|--patch] [-k|--[no-]keep-index] [-u|--include-untracked] [-a|--all]
[-q|--quiet] []::
Save your local modifications to a new 'stash entry' and roll them
back to HEAD (in the working tree and in the index).
--
2.14.1.480.gb18f417b89
