Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] stash: introduce new format create

[Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@gmail.com>]

On 02/06, Jeff King wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 05, 2017 at 08:26:41PM +0000, Thomas Gummerer wrote:
> 
> > git stash create currently supports a positional argument for adding a
> > message.  This is not quite in line with how git commands usually take
> > comments (using a -m flag).
> > 
> > Add a new syntax for adding a message to git stash create using a -m
> > flag.  This is with the goal of deprecating the old style git stash
> > create with positional arguments.
> > 
> > This also adds a -u argument, for untracked files.  This is already used
> > internally as another positional argument, but can now be used from the
> > command line.
> 
> How do we tell the difference between new-style invocations, and
> old-style ones that look new-style? IOW, I think:
> 
>   git stash create -m works
> 
> currently treats "-m works" as the full message, and it would now become
> just "works".
> 
> That may be an acceptable loss for the benefit we are getting. The
> alternative is to make yet another verb for create, as we did with
> save/push). I have a feeling that hardly anybody uses "create", though,
> and it's mostly an implementation detail. So given the obscure nature,
> maybe it's an acceptable level of regression. I dunno.

Right.  So I did a quick search on google and github for this, and
there seems one place where git stash create -m is used [1].  From a
quick look it does however not seem like the -m in the stash message
is of any significance there, but rather that the intention was to use
a flag that doesn't exist.

I *think* this regression is acceptable, but I'm happy to introduce
another verb if people think otherwise.

> But either way, it should probably be in the commit message in case
> somebody does have to track it down later.

I'll add something there, thanks!

> -Peff

[1]: https://github.com/Andersbakken/nrdp-scripts/blob/1052fc6781c36c4b227c7dd4838a501341b0862a/bin/git-rstash#L81