From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D5BB1FC44 for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 21:57:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752565AbdBMV5i (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Feb 2017 16:57:38 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:54545 "EHLO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752448AbdBMV5h (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Feb 2017 16:57:37 -0500 Received: (qmail 9170 invoked by uid 109); 13 Feb 2017 21:57:37 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 21:57:37 +0000 Received: (qmail 28082 invoked by uid 111); 13 Feb 2017 21:57:36 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 16:57:36 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 13 Feb 2017 16:57:34 -0500 Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 16:57:34 -0500 From: Jeff King To: Thomas Gummerer Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Stephan Beyer , Junio C Hamano , Marc Strapetz , Johannes Schindelin , =?utf-8?B?w5h5dmluZCBBIC4=?= Holm , Jakub =?utf-8?B?TmFyxJlic2tp?= Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] stash: introduce new format create Message-ID: <20170213215734.puoung6hhdifbgai@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20170129201604.30445-1-t.gummerer@gmail.com> <20170205202642.14216-1-t.gummerer@gmail.com> <20170205202642.14216-5-t.gummerer@gmail.com> <20170206155606.xgkmhg656vuc6uki@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20170211145127.GA23081@hank> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170211145127.GA23081@hank> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 02:51:27PM +0000, Thomas Gummerer wrote: > > 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. Yeah, I think your patch is actually fixing that case. But your search is only part of the story. You found somebody using "-m" explicitly, but what about somebody blindly calling: git stash create $* That's now surprising to somebody who puts "-m" in their message. > I *think* this regression is acceptable, but I'm happy to introduce > another verb if people think otherwise. Despite what I wrote above, I'm still inclined to say that this isn't an important regression. I'd be surprised if "stash create" is used independently much at all. -Peff