Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] stash: support pathspec argument

[Jeff King <peff@peff.net>]

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 03:50:43PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> >> My "-p" suggestion suffers from a similar problem if you treat it as
> >> "you can omit the 'push' if you say "-p", rather than "if -p is the
> >> first option, it is a synonym for 'push -p'".
> >
> > I'm almost convinced of special casing "-p".  (Maybe I'm easy to
> > convince as well, because it would be convenient ;) ) However it's a
> > bit weird that now "git stash -p file" would work, but "git stash -m
> > message" wouldn't.
> 
> I am not sure why this matters.  The original "git stash <msg>" was
> just "Are you being extremely busy and cannot even afford to type
> 'save'?  Ok, let me assume you meant that!".  Now we are talking
> about picking and choosing hunks carefully going through interactive
> process, I really do not think there is any justification to infer
> 'push' when 'push' was omitted in "git stash push -p" the user wants
> to do.

Maybe it is just me and my muscle memory, but "git stash -p" is quite a
common command for me[1]. And I have typed "git stash -p foo" many times
and been annoyed that it didn't work. I was hoping to end that
annoyance.

I guess I could make an alias and retrain my fingers.

-Peff

[1] I almost never run "reset --hard", preferring instead to stash away
    changes just in case I would change my mind later and want them. And
    I quite often use "stash -p" because I like to double check what I
    am throwing away.

    I also use "stash -p" heavily when picking apart changes from the
    working tree.